Why Was General Wesley Clark Forced Out as Head of Nato?

[retyred]

From Sidney Blumenthal's memoir, The Clinton Wars (2003):
http://hnn.us/articles/1410.html#clark9-19-03


At the Pentagon, a graceless note was struck in July <1999> ... when General Clark was summarily retired early as SACEUR. This was a personal slap at him for having insisted on ground troops against the Pentagon's recommendation and for his sharpness in pursuing that strategy. And the White House had been snookered without realizing it when it had earlier agreed to what Berger and others thought was a routine replacement process at SACEUR. But if it was held against Clark that he was a political general, it was a mistaken impression. Clark had in fact put his strategic concerns above politics and above his career.

Clark was called at night and informed of the Pentagon's decision without being given any recourse. He instantly received a call from a Washington Post reporter, who had been tipped off by the Secretary of Defense's office, to confirm the story. When the President learned what had happened, he was furious-"I'd like to kill somebody," he told me- but there was nothing to be done. Clark's enforced early retirement from the European post was a fait accompli. Secretary Cohen and General Shelton had considered Clark insubordinate. Clinton awarded Clark the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the British gave him an honorary knighthood. But the Pentagon's treatment of Clark left a sour taste amid the triumph.



CLARK FOR PRESIDENT
"I'm going to give them the TRUTH and they'll THINK it's hell."
Retyred IN FLA.

[Catch22Dem]

1. Discussed briefly earlier tonight

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=51289

[retyred]

3. Missed It

CLARK FOR PRESIDENT
"I'm going to give them the TRUTH and they'll THINK it's hell."
Retyred IN FLA.

[The Magistrate]

2. In Other Words, Sir

Gen. Clark was un-stuck by a Republican for being "Clinton's General" and achieving a victory all Republicans in Congress claimed could not and should not be won.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Julien Sorel]

4. And was considered 'insubordinate' for pushing for a policy

that would have led to minimum civilian casualties, and ended the war much more quickly.

[KittyWampus]

9. He Stood Up For What Was Right!

That is what makes him Presidential material.

The politicos and Establishment Generals didn't want to take any casualties...

But were willing to inflict them on the civilians.

[retyred]

6. At the time

being anything Clinton was a thorn in the side since none of the "gates" were producing anything except Monica.

On that note: Newsweek Reports Bush White House Attempting To “Deep Six” Pardongate Investigation http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2001/862.shtml

After three days of hearings that seemed to raise more questions than answers even some of the staunchest anti-Clinton Republicans are beginning to think they may be wasting their time. ``This is a dead end," an aide close to Rep. Dan Burton, the Indiana Republican leading the pardons investigation, tells Newsweek.



CLARK FOR PRESIDENT
"I'm going to give them the TRUTH and they'll THINK it's hell."
Retyred IN FLA.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

5. He was too gung-ho, and Americans hate gung-ho generals

right?

[retyred]

7. Americans

didn't fire him!



CLARK FOR PRESIDENT
"I'm going to give them the TRUTH and they'll THINK it's hell."
Retyred IN FLA.

[kodi]

8. he bypassed the hierarchy of DOD & Pentagon & spoke directly to clinton

"General Wesley K. Clark became the Supreme Allied Commander Europe on 11 July 1997. He is also the Commander-in-Chief, United States European Command."

http://www.nato.int/cv/saceur/clark.htm

"The primary task of SACEUR is to contribute to preserving the peace, security and territorial integrity of Alliance member states. Should aggression occur, or be considered imminent, SACEUR, as Supreme Commander, is responsible for executing all military measures within his capability and authority, to demonstrate Alliance solidarity and preparedness to maintain the integrity of Alliance territory, safeguard freedom of the seas and economic lifelines, and to preserve or restore the security of his Area of Responsibility (AOR).

"SACEUR conducts military planning, including the identification and requesting of forces required for the full range of Alliance missions, which include the promotion of stability, contribution to crisis management and provision for effective defence. He makes recommendations to NATO's political and military authorities on any military matter which might affect his ability to carry out his responsibilities. SACEUR has direct access to national Chiefs of Staff and may communicate with appropriate national authorities, as necessary, to facilitate the accomplishment of his missions."

http://www.nato.int/docu/handbook/2001/hb120701.htm

What pissed off the Pentagon is that Clark felt that as SACEUR he could by-pass the Pentagon and Sec of DOD and speak directly with the president.

I repeat:

"SACEUR has direct access to national Chiefs of Staff and may communicate with appropriate national authorities, as necessary, to facilitate the accomplishment of his missions."

Clark considered that included direct communications with POTUS

It's what got him canned.

[carpetbagger]

10. Washington Post editorial from 1999...

Edited to avoid a glitch with using square parentheses.

It's not been available online for some time, so here it is reproduced...

"Political" General
July 29, 1999

AS SUPREME commander of NATO, Gen. Wesley Clark led the alliance to a victory in Kosovo that essentially saved its credibility and its future. He is now in the midst of what may be an even more challenging assignment: helping to build an enduring peace in the Balkans. This is the moment Defense Secretary William Cohen and the administration pick to inform Gen. Clark he will be relieved three months early in order to free his post.

It's often said, including within his Army, that Wes
Clark is too "political." What does this really mean? No one could question Gen. Clark's courage or martial ability...(recounting of his deeds)

No, what "political" means in this case is that Gen. Clark wanted to use his authority to actually accomplish something. He understood early on, when most of his superiors were desperate to avoid any involvement in Kosovo, that empty threats would not impress Slobodan Milosevic but would destroy NATO as an effective alliance. Once the fighting began, he battled Washington repeatedly for the tools needed to win the war: Apache helicopters, sufficient air power, ground troops should they become necessary. He lost some of those battles and won some, but managed overall to forge a successful war strategy while taking orders from 19 separate allied governments. That did, indeed, require some understanding
of politics.

The Pentagon defends its decision in his case as a normal rotation. But the abrupt announcement of his early removal can only undermine the administration's ostensible commitment to bring peace to the Balkans.

(My Editorializing: He was too cozy with Clinton and Albright. Clinton believed the Shelton/Cohen cover story about Ralston/4 stars/rotation. Berger still does. But he was canned by people who opposed Clinton and his policy against Milosevic. Milosevic, not Hussein, was our generation's closest analogy to Hitler.)