A foreigner's view on Wesley Clark (long)

[Capt_Nemo]

I first heard about Wesley Clark during the Kosovo War.

As I made it pretty clear since I started posting in these boards
I was and remain completely opposed to that war.

In my view it was an enterprise lobbyed for by the neo-cons we all
learned to despise. It's aim was to set up a precedent in undermining
the authority of the UNSC, whose ultimate result we can see now in
Iraq. Pandora's box was opened for the first time since the 1930's.

However, in the resistance to the current PNAC offensive I find
myself siding with people that not only executed orders during that
war, like Clark, but that issued those very same orders, like Jacques
Chirac, Gerhard Schroder, Joska Fischer, Robin Cook, or Javier
Solana.
The support of these people is essential to our anti-PNAC cause and
so is Clark's.

During the war I learned something about Clark's personality.
This is not the stuff usualy associated to someone whose
professional duties require him to dilute his individuality.

Back then I read an article of Gabriel Garcia Marquez (!) about
Clark, where he talked about a person highly educated and cult:
an erudite.
That is a huge plus in a Nation where the current
leader is the embodiement of the destructive wave of
anti-intelectualism, that is corroding the foundations of its
modernity.

During the war we were exposed to a darker side of Clark's personality.
During the Pristina stand-off Clark went ballistic when
the russians thrusted into Pristina airport. Clark reacted
like a thin-skinned narcissist: he took it personaly, like the
russians had outwitted him, or were putting him to ridicule, and he
was willing to strike them and ignite WWIII, when the russian
stunt had all but failed, because the Hungarians had denied their
airspace to the russian air force.

This flaw of character is what worries me more about Clarke.
But it pales in comparisson whith the diseased minds of the
criminals and socicopaths that occupy the WH and the Pentagon.
And, besides, nothing can guarantee us that any other of the
Democratic Contenders will reveal him/herself as a hubris filled
prima donna (in fact it is a common feature of politicians).

So how do I compare Clarke with the other Democratic candidates?

First let me say that I'm close to Kucinich's agenda but I don't
think that americans are ready to have someone like him as President.
I like Dean's stance on the war, and the dynamism of his campaign
but I'm under no illusion that he is a centrist.
Kerry talks the talk but has caved in to much for me to trust him.

Back to Clark. His Blitzer interview left me with a very good
impression. He came out as a kind of Howard Dean armed with the
ultimate chickenhawk killer (his Curriculum).
He is not my ideal candidate but I don't mind that either he or
Dean gets the nomination. I Prefer Dean or Clark to Kerry.
And Clark is certainly better then all the others, except for Kucinich
or Sharpton.

[Jackpine Radical]

1. I don't have a lot to say in response,

except that this thoughtful post shouldn't just drop off the end of the board.

:kick:

[BigBigBear]

3. Agreed

The Repubs HAVE TO make this an election about national security (because they have failed at everything else).

Clark can squash them on their only issue. Sorry, Dean is right but can't deliver that knockout punch, in my view.

[Spazito]

2. I, too am a foreigner, but a close neighbour...

and have watched Clark closely since his NATO days. I have been and still am very impressed by what I have seen. I have no doubt he has flaws as do we all but I have seen nothing come out that would preclude him running for the Presidency. My sense of the current 9 candidates, all worthy people, is that they have not captured the attention or even the interest of the American people in general. I think Clark could do that. It is also my sense that the American populace do want some reassurance that the person they vote for will have the experience and background that would understand their need for security as well as the all important social issues.

Just some random thoughts from a Canadian who wants very much to see the current occupant of the WH banished in 04.

[NNN0LHI]

4. This one is worth reading whether one agrees with it or not n/t

[Proletariat]

5. Ask those whose families were murdered under Milosovic if they like Clark

then get back to me.







btw, Clark = AMERICAN HERO

[JasonBerry]

6. Ask The Serbs ....

who are being slaughtered, even today by KLA Islamic terrorists in Kosovo, if THEY like Clark.

[Pepperbelly]

10. it ALWAYS depends on whose ox is being gored... nt

[tameszu]

7. The original post deserved a much more thoughtful response

than the last two posts of this thread.

I was also a foreigner who, like a minority of my lefty friends (as well as my Muslim friends) supported the Kosovo intervention, with reservations. I thought that the horror of Bosnia clearly demonstrated that armed intervention was much overdue, but that the Western powers should have had the spine to risk the lives of their ground troops, instead of the lives of the Serbian civilians who had to live through the all-aerial war. Most of my other lefty friends were just kind of confused, not knowing what to make of a Western-led intervention that didn't involve a capturing a valuable resource or piece of strategic terrain. A minority were opposed. My one Serbian friend attended some anti-war protests, but found herself also out of place among the fervant nationalism she discovered there.

I hold Clark partially responsible for both the successes and the failure of that campaign. I sadly think he could have done more to reduce casualties--which were thankfully quite low. I also think that his preferred option of a ground invasion would have been morally superior, and I am somewhat heartened when I learn of the vehemence with which he advocated it, whatever his motives.

As for the Pristina incident, Clark doesn't come off well in most accounts, but I think that the telling is usually biased against him because the words of the opposing general make such a striking soundbite, and because Clark was overruled, but things didn't work out. I very much doubt that anything significantly awful would have happened had Clark gotten his way. Several days later, before situation was completely resolved, Clark and Jackson (the British general who dissented with him) did indeed try to send British and French troops to enter the airport; the Russians refused them entry, there was a bit of a standoff, and then the British and French left. Lo and behold, no one came close to shooting one another.

And I also liked that piece by Garcia Marquez on Solana and Clark. Go http://www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/19990412/ile12092.html">here to check it out.

[Capt_Nemo]

8. tameszu, although we have differing points of view on the

Kosovo war, I appreciate the thoughtfull way you addressed this issue.
Anyway I have to make a remark on the following point:

"a Western-led intervention that didn't involve a capturing a valuable resource or piece of strategic terrain"

The Geostrategic importance of the Balkans can never be overstressed,
specialy in what concerns bringing fossil fuel from the ME/Caspian
to Central Europe/Adriatic Sea.

[Donna Zen]

9. Do you have a different link?

I cannot access this link and would like to read the piece. Thanks.

[charlie]

11. Alternate link

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,206776,00.html