Clark questioned Viet Nam war while he was at Oxford

[xray s]

This is a link to The Center for Public Integrity's website that talks about Clark's fundraising. As I was reading through it I came across this passage...It could help explain why George McGovern, another war hero who opposes war, endorsed wes Clark.

http://www.bop2004.org/bop2004/candidate.aspx?cid=12

At West Point, Clark continued to excel. He finished first in his class as a plebe and went on to graduate first among the class of 1966. After graduation, Clark attended Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar, where he earned a masters degree in philosophy, politics, and economics. While there, he went on a speaking tour to explain the U.S. policy in Vietnam, though he had been one of the first members of his West Point class to question the war.

Shortly thereafter he found himself in Vietnam, where he served with the 1st infantry division staff in Lai Kae before being transferred to a field command. Soon after, Clark was shot four times while out on patrol, but managed to direct a counterattack and successfully lead the platoon to safety. For his injuries he received a purple heart, and for his valor, a silver star.

Does anyone have any more info on Clark at Oxford and his feelings about Viet Nam?

[dd123]

1. Clark defended Vietnam War - he did not oppose it.

See this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=132602

[Clark4VotingRights]

2. Duty, Honor, Country

Sounds like he took it to heart at West Point.

Is he now going to get trashed for it here?
If so, will Senator Kerry also get trashed for going to Vietnam?

[wholeworld]

3. no

at least i hope not

[xray s]

4. <sigh>

It looks like my post ignited another thread bashing Clark over Vietnam.

I was just curious about the Center for Public Integrity comment that Clark was one of the first member of his West Point class to question the war. Is that mentioned in any bio's of Clark? I would like to know what his questions were.

Still would appreciate more info about this specifically.

[in_cog_ni_to]

5. From The Art of Politics, Oxford American Magazine, May/June 2003:

http://www.oxfordamericanmag.com/oa_extras/murrell.pdf

<snip>
Lieutenant General Dale Vesser, now retired, taught Clark political philosophy at West Point before going on to work for Robert McNamara and to write a volume of what later became known as the Pentagon papers. He remembers Clark being one of the first cadets in class to ask the question, "Why are we in Vietnam?"

"He wasn't impressed by the conventional answers--domino theory, other things the government would have us believe at the time," says Vesser. "These sorts of things were discussed at West Point quite openly." After serving in Vietnam, Clark went on to write a paper criticizing the way the war was being fought through "politically designed" bombing that was intended to signal U.S. resolve and "avoid decisive military impact." Clark judged it a failure, as did so many other young officers later on, including Colin Powell, whose "Powell doctrine" endorses the use of overwhelming force.

If Clark had been wary of the Vietnam war as a cadet, something changed shortly after graduation. He was the last Rhodes Scholar (the only West Pointer in his class who received the scholarship) to participate in a U.S.-arranged speaker program that dispatched young Americans around Britain to explain U.S. policy in Vietnam. Clark remembers being roundly booed, and looks back on the experience as his first foray into the world of foreign policy and diplomacy. He remained in Europe, studied at Oxford, then returned briefly to the States before heading for Vietnam. Clark served a few months on the 1st Infantry Division staff in Lai Kae before shipping out to the field..."
<snip>

[xray s]

7. thanks incognito

It's interesting that Clark was challenging the conventional(myoptic)wisdom of the time.

It seems he has done that throughout his career. That's probably what got him in hot water with Cohen.


(edit;I see I made a mistake in the thread headline; it should say West Point, not Oxford)

[in_cog_ni_to]

13. You're welcome, xray s.

:) Glad I could help. Yes indeed. He questioned the "conventional wisdom" of Shelton and Cohen and went to THEIR boss, President Clinton and Madeline Albright. The President and Albright agreed with Clark....hence, the anger of Shelton and Cohen.

Here's a very good article about it.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795

[Clark4VotingRights]

14. Agreed. Quite the mix of intellect and honor, duty (etc).

And after he fought in Vietnam and was shot,
he was still in the military. A lifer. So it
wasn't much of an option to openly criticize it.

Sounds like he tried to change things from the inside.

[ecstatic]

6. he questioned the war, then accepted & defended it

Most people question or analyze the issues before forming opinions.

[in_cog_ni_to]

8. He questioned the war, served in it

and was almost killed when shot 4 times. It's shameful for ANYONE to question his service. It's disgusting. Give him a break.

[Bucky]

9. He was still in the army. I imagine he was ordered to defend it

I've worked for the government and I've been put in a position of having to defend a policy I didn't agree with. It sucks, but when you're ordered you do your duty. You can't have a government in which the bureaucrats feel free to obstruct the policies of the elected leaders, regardless of the cause. That's the job for civilians and citizens and the press. Clark did his duty, nothing more.

[LiberalBushFan]

10. right on the nose

imagine if everytime military intervention was necessary half the soldiers decided not to help because they disagreed and another quarter decided only to help with part they agreed with. We'd be powerless. It's up to those, and it's the patriotic duty of those not in the army to voice this opposition if they disagree.

The two honorable routes if you diagree with the war are
1. To fight for your country
2. If not in the army, and ESPECIALLY if there was a draft that you got out of while others didn't, to be vocal as f*** about your disagreement.

So if Vietnam is an issue for anyone (it isn't much of one for me, being so long ago), the candidate who's really getting a free pass on the Vietnam issue is Dean who chose neither of the two honorable options.

[ecstatic]

11. I mean, he verbally defended it in speeches

In front of angry crowds. Even if he was forced to fight, how does that explain him giving speeches in support of it?

[Clark Can WIN]

12. Link please to his speeches supporting the war of Vietnam?

Please back up your statement.

[IndianaGreen]

15. Here is an earlier thread with all the links you need

The problem is that he defended the political decision to go to Vietnam while an active duty officer.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=132602

[in_cog_ni_to]

16. Still waiting for that link

:kick:

[Bucky]

17. Re-read the article. He was on "speaking tour". As 2nd Lt, he was ordered

A 2nd lieutenant fresh from the academy does not just book his own speaking tours. This was part of a program organized by the US government to send thoughtful young people to go out and meet with people questioning the war in Europe. What's he gonna do, refuse an order? This is a big old non-issue. Clark was against this war we have today and is for my money (literally) the best voice we have against reckless jingoism coming out of the White House. He can get votes where other candidates can't. I'll vote for any of them, but if I have to choose what vehicle I'm going to race in, I'll choose a Masseratti over a Volvo any day of the week.