Re: Clark - Soldiers Can Be Liberal...

[wyldwolf]

The candidacy of Gen. Wesley Clark for president has touched off a nasty debate inside the Democratic Party. Not the one over whether he's really a Democrat -- that's so absurd it's hardly worth debating. The debate I'm talking about is over whether a warrior should lead the party at all.

I say yes, and not just because the Democrats need credibility on national security issues in order to beat George W. Bush next year. To me, the U.S. military represents some of the best values of the party: advancement without advantage, patriotism, multilateralism, shared sacrifice and diversity.

In the military, integration thrives alongside meritocracy. When the University of Michigan's affirmative action program came under assault from the Bush administration, it was the armed forces that stepped forward to defend the idea of diversity, citing the vastly improved military that resulted when the forces sought to make their ranks reflect America.

During the run-up to the Iraq war, when the media slipped into a chilling, McCarthyite posture, it was military leaders and soldiers who spoke most eloquently about people's right to dissent.

And while our armed forces are by no means perfect (the treatment of women at the academies being a major black eye), they represent some of the brightest, bravest people in our society. In the armed forces, people like my younger brother find lifelong friendships with people of all backgrounds.

You'd think progressives would embrace those things, yet some on the left seem to have a reflexive suspicion of the military and a sense that because it is an instrument of war, the people in it are necessarily warmongers.

As for Kosovo, which has become the cause of many who oppose Clark: I can live with a war to stop ongoing genocide. It's the ones to knock off tin-pot dictators for 20-year-old genocide, phony ties to Sept. 11 and phantom weapons of mass destruction that this progressive has a problem with.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/6892555.htm

[Padraig18]

1. An eloquent defense

I don't support General Clark, but I do not oppose him, per se. I think he brings much to the Democratic 'table', and I am pleased to see him in the race.

[clar]

2. I'm not a fan of the military

and I do consider it an essentially anti-democratic and anti-liberal institution. I like Clark despite his military career, not because of it. The foundation of liberalism is questioning rather than adherence to doctrine. I realize that dislike and distrust of the military is not a popular stance these days, even on a liberal board such as DU, and I know that the institution is a neccessary evil, but I don't view it as fertile ground for liberalism.

[Larkspur]

3. I refuse to be a private in Clark's politcal army

and will never take orders from him or his subordinates. Trust in the civilian realm has to be earned, not demanded, like in the military, which is a male supremacist hierarchy.

Regarding the run up to war, civilians led the anti-war effort and spoke up eloquently.

No, a general nor any other military officer makes a good president without first proving that they can make the transition from the military realm to the civilian realm. The President of the United States is a civilian, not military, office, and no Ike was not a great president. He was a mediocre president at best who help overthrow Iran's democracy in 1953, a decision that we are still suffering the consequences from and Ike also got us initially involved in Vietnam.

Clark has no credibility as a Democrat nor as an experienced political campaigner. My hostility towards Clark would decrease if he would gain experience as a Democrat in a lower political office, like Governor, US Senator, or US Rep, manage the affairs of that office successfully under the Democratic platform, and win re-election in that office at least once before running for President.

Clark had an opportunity to start his political life as a Democrat in 2000 running for Arkansas governor on the Democratic ticket, but he declined and thus intentionally bypassed a golden opportunity to prove me and his other critics wrong.

As it stands, Clark's credentials suit him for Secretary of Defense, nothing more.

[yelladawg]

4. So Veterans aren't good at anything but killing?

Veterans are just as qualified to run for the White House as Governors, used car salesmen, and Doctors are. I think even more so. We know what it's like to have a bullet go by your ear. War sucks, plain and simple.

There were plenty of Veterans who were anti-war protesters and we too spoke eloquently.

[Larkspur]

5. Taking bullets doesn't qualify one for President

Julius Ceasar fought gallantly in wars and he destroyed the Roman Republic and instituted the Roman Empire.

My argument against Clark has been consistant. He needs to prove that he can make the transition from military leadership to civilian before running for President. When he had the chance, he turned it down. The last thing this country needs is a general who is a political lightweight for President.

[wyldwolf]

6. As opposed to say, a doctor who is a political lightweight?

I know, Dean was a governor of a state who's economy is the size of Miami's.

Might as well have been a Mayor.

As opposed to Clark's government experience leading NATO with negotiations and such.

Point is, your "no experience" excuse either doesn't apply, or it can be applied to everyone.

[Larkspur]

15. Dean's no lightweight and his experience in Vermont outweighs

Clark's civilian credentials.

Dean took a state that had a $60 million deficit, the worse bond rating in New England, and facing a recession not seen since the Great Depression. During his tenure he turned the state's fiscal health from deficit to surplus, from worse bond rating to the best in NE, and got Vermont through 2 Bush recessions. That's the kind of talent we need next year.

Clark's credentials make him an excellent choice for Secretary of Defense.

[yelladawg]

7. "talking bullshit doesn't qualify one for President"

The last thing this country needs is a President who is a lightweight in warfare. We already have one like that in the White House right now.

[Trajan]

13. Fallacy of Relevence

Caesar was Caesar .... an individual .....

Wesley Clark is not Caesar ....

False analogy ....

[Larkspur]

16. Both were generals in a decaying Republic

Clark was a lobbyist for the military-industrial complex after being general, so why should I trust that he will restore our democracy's health?

[pocoloco]

8. LOL

Look what the chickenhawks have one to this country!

[yelladawg]

9. ain't it the truth

Why do I get the feeling there is an anti-Veteran movement going on here at DU?

[wyldwolf]

10. because there is...

My generation in my family is the first without a veteran.

I had great great grandfathers and uncles in the Civil War (BOTH sides! We have old letters from them.)

I have grandfathers in WWI and WWII

My dad served in Korea.

All democrats (at least, from my grandfathers up)

Though I'm not a vet, I have a deep respect for them.

I hate that the GOP has tried to make the military their exclusive domain.

And I hate that there are some on the left who BELIEVE the military is the GOP's exclusive domain.

[Larkspur]

14. My mother was a World War II vet and so was my uncle

I respect vets, but don't respect generals, like Clark, who play games with what Party they belong to and expect people to swoon over their medals.

Trust has to be earned in the civilian world and Clark has a long way to go.

[wyldwolf]

17. Maybe for you...but fortunately for the democratic party...

...you don't set the rules.

[Trajan]

12. Blah Blah Blah .....

Im sure you felt good penning this ....

That was the idea ..... right ? ....

[tokenlib]

11. Having a democratic general as pres has potential!

Maybe it will take a general to scrutinize the defense budget as president. Like Clark says..the republicans like weapons systems..the democrats like people. The people in the military and veterans could use a comrade as president. Bush and the GOP have treated these people like crap.

Also, I don't buy this anti-general, anti-military people crap on DU. I do accept being anti military-industrial complex! Some of the strongest opponents of the Iraq war have been veterans. They know that war is not a game and that peace is precious. And I believe they are the majority among veterans.

Lastly, Clark may be the candidate that has the best chance to evict the squatter in the White House. He does appear to have progressive leanings. And some of the issues he has been more specific on (Social Security, tax policy, environment) place him to the left of some of our establishment candidates.

[RandomUser]

18. Interesting piece

Thanks for posting this