We've all heard the story by now. A few weeks back, Gen. Hugh Shelton, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was at a forum in California where he was asked, "What do you think of Gen. Wesley Clark, and would you support him as a presidential candidate?"
"I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote." Shelton replied.
There are two problems with that statent. The first is unless Shelton reveals what those "integrity and character issues" are, the charges are meaningless and they show a lack of integrity unto themselves. Afterall, how can Wesley Clark possibly rebutt them if he doesn't know what the issues are? This is like someone telling you on your wedding day, "I wouldn't marry him/her if I were you... I'm not going to say why... just trust me..." Huh? How does one respond to that?
The second problem is the assertion that Clark came out of Europe early based on the mysterious and vague charges of "integrity and character" issues. In all actuality, Clark was relieved of duty based on personal vendettas carried by General Hugh Shelton and Admiral Leighton (Snuffy) Smith. It was Shelton who called Clark to inform him that his nato assignment would end early. (According to Waging Modern War, Shelton would not even show Clark the courtesy of extending the phone call a few minutes to work out a face-saving exit.) President Clinton privately told Clark, "I had nothing to do with it."
http://www.farcaster.com/mhonarchive/hauserreport/msg00467.html So what drove General Shelton to the decision to recall a very successful General from the field after executing a very successful war?
He directly crossed Admiral Leighton Smith, the four-star commander of Mediterranean nato forces. Although nato demanded a full Serb withdrawal from the besieged city of Sarajevo, Smith urged that a brief bombing pause in early September be extended indefinitely, since, as he explained to Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, he thought the United States
had no business intervening. But Clark, then still a three-star, insisted in a heated telephone call that the bombing should continue as planned. As Holbrooke writes in To End A War, "I could tell from the noises emanating from Clark's cell phone that he was being scolded by a very angry, very senior American naval commander." Smith--who quickly alerted his superiors to Clark's insolence--had the inclinations of nato policymakers on his side; after all, heads of state had neglected Bosnia as long as was politically tolerable. But Clark was right, and he won: The bombing resumed and caused the Bosnian Serbs to withdraw from Sarajevo within two weeks of Clark's clash with Smith. That November, the warring parties met at Dayton to negotiate a peace accord. Clark was soon afterward awarded his fourth star--despite ferocious resistance from the Army, which would have preferred his retirement.
http://www.farcaster.com/mhonarchive/hauserreport/msg00467.htmlDuring the above-mention events, President Clinton seethed, privately calling Smith insubordinate, and eventually forcing the admiral to resume action.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/books/2001/0109.thompson.htmlSo, we see, Clark defied Admiral Smith, won Clinton's backing, and resumed the campaign. The intervention ended less than two weeks later.
So here's the setup. Clark defied Admiral Smith. Smith alerted his superiors to Clark's "insolence" (but apparantly not Bill Clinton, who agreed with Clark and disagreed with Smith.) Those superiors were most likely Richard Cohen and General Shelton.
Shelton, Smith, and Cohen were angry. Not only had they been defied, but they were proven wrong and were not backed by their Commander in Chief.
They fought Clark being awared his Fourth star - wanting him retired instead. They had been out manuervered by Wesley Clark and Clark won the Kosovo intervention. Embarassing to be sure.
I don't know how thick Admiral Leighton W. Smith and General Shelton were during the Kosovo conflict, before it, or after it, but they have both been guest speakers at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce.
http://www.uky.edu/RGS/Patterson/faculty.htmI would suspect their association goes back a bit further.
As for Clark and his "character issues," he "risked his career to confront the uniformed reluctance to use force in defense of human rights."
Clark was disliked (even hated?) by the upper Pentagon brass because...
1. Such liberal/progressive views like humanitarian missions and nation building for the military made the Pentagon uneasy...
Despite his credentials as a warrior - 34 years in the Army, including a Silver Star, two Bronze Stars and a Purple Heart earned in Vietnam - {Clark} argues that the U.S. military must learn how to perform such nontraditional functions as peacekeeping and even nation-building, because that's what it will be doing in the 21st century, like it or not. And, since it's no small task to turn gung-ho soldiers into order-keeping policers, it's all the more urgent that the entire military start rethinking its doctrine immediately.
Paradigm-shifting views such as these did not make Clark popular with his superiors at the Pentagon, including former Secretary of Defense William Cohen. http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&pubID=5282. Wesley Clark welcomes homosexuals in the military
I'm not sure that I'd be in favor of policy. I supported that policy. That was a policy that was given. I don't think it works. It works better in some circumstances than it does in others. But essentially we've got a lot of gay people in the armed forces, always have had, always will have. And I think that, you know, we should welcome people that want to serve. - MSNBC
Former NATO supreme commander Wesley Clark says it is time for the ban on gays in the military to be lifted. - gayPASG
3. Clark was/is too intelligent for the military "culture."
...General Barry McCaffrey told the Washington Post: "This is no insult to army culture ... but he was way too bright, way too articulate, way too good looking and perceived to be way too wired to fit in with our culture."http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1044318,00.htmlI would say these sound like integrity and character issues I admire.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
