If Foregn Policy is the key, is a General the right image for the USA?

[peabody71]

Will a General as President create what we are looking for.
We all agree that we need to fix our image abroad after Bush's alienation, but will electing a military man acheive the opossite effect? Is it esential for our President to have major foreign policy experience? If so what are we trying to achieve?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Classical_Liberal]

3. It looks more like 3rd party supporters and pacifists

The same people who attack Dean. I am a Dean supporter.

[IranianDemocrat]

4. Interesting.

Might be true.

[peabody71]

6. What a fucking stupid statement.

That is just more blind Clark support.
Shall we simply fall in line like the repugs or shall we digest every asspect of the situation?

[Classical_Liberal]

7. Do you have to pretend that Clark is prowar in order to

support someone else. Do you realize this hurts a position you claim to be for. The attacks on Dean over his evenhandedness comments were just as retarded as these attacks on Clark are today. It is destructive to invent disagreements. I truly disagreed with Kerry over his authorization of Bush to go to war, but I am not going to pick a fight with Kerry if he says the sky is blue and the grass is green. That is silly.

[peabody71]

9. Who said anything about his war stance?

[Classical_Liberal]

11. Why would we care whether he is a general either

If someone makes the claim that i he is the only one that can beat Bush because he is a general flame away, but why is incombant on you to claim it hurts us somehow?

[Classical_Liberal]

2. It is neither here nor there whether he is a general

I am FOR Dean, and I probably won't vote for Clark in the primary, but I don't like people mischarcterizing the message of candidates just for the hell of it. Other candidates including Clark have views I agree with.

[Maple]

5. Do you know what your image is now?

Will this improve or worsen it?

[peabody71]

8. The question is: if we are so concerned about our image abroad..

is a General the right symbolism? A legit question, no?
Otherwise I would argue that all we are worried about is to continue Bush's "war on terrorism", and not improve our relations abroad.
The U.S. has such severe enemies due to decades of disasterous, self serving foreign policy. Our Government is to blame.
Clinton, a non military man went along way toward a peaceful image around the world.
Will a General, despite his best efforts, be able to achieve the same?

[eleny]

24. It doesn't matter what we say to you

You should just listen to what Clark has to say for himself. And you will know if you want this individual to represent you, or if you want someone else. It's really as simple as that. He doesn't have a threatening demeanor, IMO. But you will make up your own mind about that very soon.

[Abe Linkman]

10. Clark is considered by many a War Criminal -

Clark is sort of like MacArthur - vain, egotistical, brown-noser and much, much worse.

Go to counterpunch and check out today's articles on Clark, and then tell me you'll support someone like him.

Actually, if you just stop and think about it. This is a different time than when Ike was around. So, look at where Clark is (got his last promotion sorta like how bush got his degrees). Does a career military officer in the U.S. Army really sound like someone who is anything but a status quo person, at best?

Check him out and I'm sure you'll choose someone else to support.

[Classical_Liberal]

13. Counterpunch is full of it

and is spreading Rove propaganda. Clark didn't support the Iraq war. Counterpunch also spread the Gore invented the internet lie. Don't believe it just because it is written in Counterpunch. Counterpunch has never endorced a Democrat. Counterpunch is marxist 3rd party, not liberal.

[Zuni]

17. Counterpunch is a left wing nut

publication. They have about as much credibility to me as Michael Savage or Sean Hannity. ANY American military officer in battle is a war criminal to them. America is the ultimate evil, no matter who they are fighting. They are virulently anti-all military, and will blame the US for everything bad that can possibly happen.

Their stuff on Clark is a poor hatchet job, and their publication is full of sh--.

[Classical_Liberal]

20. They have there moments, but their tendency to engage in the

smear campaigns of the right, and advocate third party even when it isn't constructive is quite annoying.

[Zuni]

19. A cheap hatchet job

by the wingnuts of the extreme left who are against any US military officer, and think every policy of the US is a war crime.

[Bertrand]

21. apparantly, at least to Terry Lodge, the pristina incident

was an order by Clark to attack the Russians. This is getting pathetic.

[FDRrocks]

12. I think a General

is a good image to portray. The corrolation to violence is not obvious.

Seems to me the general "we" are trying to get George Walker Bush out of office.

I also think someone with military experiences, and having first hand battle experience, would be less likely to use force in meaningless situations.

That being said, the man in question, Wesley Clark, does not seem to be liberal enough for me, but given his credentials... I would most likely support him over Dean.

[StephNW4Clark]

14. Europeans reaction

Actually, General Clark's reputation in Europe is quite glowing. His work in the coordination of 19 governments and NGOs during the Kosovo conflict has elevated his esteem in the eyes of several governments and agencies in the region.

Coupled with that, he is strong proponent of internationalism. He also speaks Spanish, French and Russian.

[graham67]

15. Europe...

loves Clark. He's a multilateralist. He'd do a great job in repairing all the damage done with our allies.

[Maple]

16. Ahahahahahaha

.

[WillyBrandt]

18. why are you laughing?

Europe dislikes Clark? He wouldn't do a good job mending our relations with the Europeans?

[Maple]

23. Americans may admire the military

but that doesn't mean anyone else does.

Europeans don't elect military types...neither do most other people anymore.

The world has moved past that era...and a military type nowadays with pictures of him in uniform ...well, he'd look like Saddam. Or Castro.

Not to mention that the job requirements are very different.

[aneerkoinos]

32. I don't think

neither of you can really speak for Europe? Like Maple said, we don't elect generals anymore. And we wonder why US is so militaristic and violent society.

Having said that, I see no reason why doing business with Clark would not work, even though here people left of socialdemocrats generally consider him warcriminal.

[Dob Bole]

22. It will work, and this is why...

Clark's foreign policy is drastically different from that of the Bushurgeois. He was a general in NATO and believes strongly in a multilateral approach to foreign policy. In fact, most generals do, including Colin Powell. The White House is just ign'ant.

[kodi]

25. good grief, does one expect him to wear his uniform in the oval office?

considering who now occupies the office, i would be happy with bozo the clown if he brought the boys and girls home and created jobs.

i doubt our allies feel much different.

[iangb]

26. Clark is probably your best chance.....

....to restore your foreign relations.

The fact that he's an ex-General isn't as important as his many other attributes.
He's liked, trusted and respected widely outside of the US, and from here looks like he could go some way to restoring your lost credibility.

You may even be able to stop pretending to be Canadians when you travel OS with a Clark presidency.

[boilertommy]

27. Andy Jackson

Ole Andy "by God" Jackson was a damned good general and a damned good Democrat too. If Old Hickory was around today he'd horsewhip Limbaugh, cane that O'Reily fella and shoot Hannity's eyes out. My kind of guy, by the Eternal.

[rman]

28. PNAC redefined foreign policy:

it used to be diplomacy, now it's pre-emptive war.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

29. Are You Kidding?

Clark is incredibly well-respected in Europe and abroad. He has a raftload of European and other medals. There is no question he would send the right message to other countries, if he's elected as he should be.

DTH

[aneerkoinos]

33. With all respect

if US want's to have better image abroad, the PR-campaign should target people of the world, not governements handing medals. In the long run it's we the people and our perceptions and opinions that matter, not our polite dipomats.

And I don't think you can speak for Europe either.

[BelgianMadCow]

48. I second that

the medals are handed out by governments, and most governments will have strong economic reasons to provide "lip (medal) service".

I sure was proud when Belgium decided to block Nato's involvement together with France and Germany.

And I was all the more disgusted when our government quietly let trains with war material pass through the harbour of Antwerp.

[DMG]

30. Must it preclude such an image?

Considering the fact that the following accolades (among many others) were granted upon him (Commander of the Legion of Honor of France, Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany, The Grand Cordon of the Order of Leopold--Belgium) in addition with his ability to speak fluent Russian and French...I do believe our once-upon-a-time allies would see him as a welcome replacement for Bush.

I've also noticed a positive interest in a W. Clark presidency from many non-Americans...much more so than any other particular candidate.


Hitler was never appointed as general....de Gaulle was, on the other hand...

[newyawker99]

43. Hi DMG!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[DMG]

45. Thanks!

...from a Queens native living in the 6th Bourough of NYC (Broward County, FL) :beer:

[aneerkoinos]

31. One opinion from Europe

I think this question is better directed to us foreigners than USAns.

No, a General is not a very helpfull image for USA. If only hawks or people with military background are electable, that will just add to the picture of US as a very militaristic society, which makes people fear not just Bush, but also US and it's people.

A civilian would be more helpfull. Of course, this is just the theoretical side of the thing, in the end what kind of person and leader the President is, is more important than what his previous career has been.

[DemExpat]

34. On BBC last night Clark was described as a general

from quite a different mold than most US military......Rhodes scholar...degree in Economics, philosophy....

A formidable challenge to Bush and a boost for the Dems.

DemEx

[aneerkoinos]

35. What was the question?

This thread is actually about two questions:

1. The general question (pun intended): Would a General (or any military guy) be good PR for US. The answer is clearly no.

2. The implied spesific question: What about Clark? He might be good for PR despite the fact he's general, or not. Don't know.

[DemExpat]

37. A general like Clark might be great PR for the US......

Especially when one of his major foreign policy concerns is how US standing in the world has sunk so low in the last 2 years.....

I guess it comes down to how he would come across, his ideas, and his administration/team.....

DemEx

[RandomUser]

36. Intellectual Dishonesty

What I find dishonest are the people bashing Clark simply because he's a general. Prior to Clark's announcement, they were all gushing and saying he was the best VP choice particularly because of his credentials, especially the Dean supporters. And now, once Clark is running against Dean and Kerry et. al., they've all changed their tunes on the general issue.

You can say General Clark is a good choice for VP b/c he brings military and foreign policy experience, multilateral insight, immunity to chicken-hawks, or whatever to a Dean/Clark or Edwards/Clark or whoever/Clark ticket, picking him just because he's a general. But you can't then turn around and say you don't want Clark as president, b/c you don't want an ex-general on the ticket.

Besided being a military man, Clark was also an economics professor at Westpoint, as well as investment banker, among other things.

As for the argument that Clark brings nothing to the table and would not be a contender if he wasn't an ex-general, that's a strawman argument. That's exactly the same as saying Dean would not be a contender and no one would be interested listening to anything he says if he wasn't a former Vermont Governor.

Argue one thing or another, but at least be INTELLECUTALLY CONSISTENT in your logic.

In answer to the topic of this thread, I don't believe having a general for a president will necessarily improve our image in the world. But having THIS general will, because of his role in NATO. He's beloved in Europe. When he goes to Europe and asks for them to pitch in reconstruction troops and police officers to Iraq to resolve the situation, or for their help in any crisis, he can remind the of that. He can appeal directly to the heartstrings. Example:

He can say, yes, Europe, I know I'm asking for you to send your sons and daughters to Iraq in harm's way to help us reconstruct it, but you've placed your children under my command before during the Kosovo war, and I did not betray your trust. I have placed my life next to the lives of French, German, and British citizens and soldiers to stop Milosovich. Together we've achieved great things. I kept my word to you the entire time you entrusted your safety and the lives of your armed personnel to me. Trust me now.

Imagine the effect that would have on Europe. It's a PR bonanza. Add in the fact that he's a multilateralist, negotiated politics with his European military and political counterparts during his Nato tenure and Europe would swoon.

[Kamika]

38. a general that helped the muslims in yugoslavia?

You bet

[RandomUser]

39. I agree

This would help his image not just with Europe, but with the muslim world as well.

[boilertommy]

40. Investment banker

As a good Democrat I'm more worried about the fella having been a businessman than having been a soldier.

[newyawker99]

44. Hi RandomUser!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Starpass]

41. hahahahahaha--and that idiot politician we have in there now

is a correct image???? I think intelligence is probably respected worldwide. Why don't we call up a few heads of state and say, "yo, do you mind if we replace the dim one with da' general??""""

[maha]

42. Clark has foreign policy experience.

He commanded NATO forces in Europe, for pete's sake.

This is a stupid argument. Europeans know Clark; also furriners are not stupid. They'll pay attention to what sort of man he is amd what he says.

[BelgianMadCow]

46. no it's not

in a world dominated by one sole superpower, who has developed, used and proliferated nuclear weapons, and who has a military budget that is, well, sickening,

I'm not happy with a general for president. I don't see Clark cutting the military to purely defense + normal intervention size, so that leaves the US as the n°1 threat to peace in the world, imho. Besides, the image it projects isn't right for me.

I'm aware I'm using a broad brush, Clark may well have multilateral intentions and be an all-around good left-of-center guy, it's just sad when the best alternative to a warmongering cabal is a general.

Imagine a world without superpowers, where a guy like, say, Kofi Annan rules things. I'd be hugely in favor of that.

But I know I'm a dreamer, and would vote ABB including Clark if he was the nominee.

[CentristDemocrat]

47. Kucinich, Dean or GREEN. Right?