Interesting Article By Wes Clark On Democrats And The Military

[Dinger]

This is a few days old, but I found it interesting. Thought you might too.


http://securingamerica.com/node/3154

"Taking Command

Actually, Democrats and the military can get along. Here's how.

By Wesley K. Clark
Washington Post | Sunday, December 21, 2008
The last time the United States elected a Democrat as its president to govern with a majority-Democratic Congress, an immediate fracas arose over gays in the military, reinforcing a partisan story line that Democrats can't be trusted with the nation's security. Sixteen years later, some will certainly be watching how deftly President-elect Barack Obama salutes, or how House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid say the Pledge of Allegiance.

These are symbols, of course, but the national security challenges the nation faces now are anything but symbolic: two wars, an ongoing terrorist menace, a growing list of unmet military needs and a long roster of other threats arising from new quarters. So it's natural to ask: What do the Democrats need to understand about the military? And what does the military need to understand about the Democrats? As someone who has labored in both camps, I offer some thoughts. . . . .



So it's easy to assume that the military and the Democrats don't and won't get along. It's also wrong. As the 2000 election approached, a member of the Joint Chiefs confided to me: "You know, people wouldn't believe it, but probably no one else will ever treat us as well as the Clinton administration has." From a shaky beginning, including the confidence-battering 1993 "Black Hawk Down" shootout in Somalia, the top civilians on Clinton's team and the president himself took pains to build respect and trust with the military's top brass -- above all by engaging in forthright dialogue.

Building on that, Obama is off to a promising start with the Pentagon, steering clear of a reprise of the fight over "don't ask, don't tell" and picking pragmatic, non-ideological leaders whom top military officers will find highly reassuring -- especially since so many may have discovered from personal experience that a particular partisan label is no guarantee of good leadership. Retaining Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, designating Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (with her six years of experience on the Senate Armed Services Committee) as secretary of state and appointing James L. Jones (a retired four-star Marine general) as national security adviser should go a long way toward assuring members of the armed forces that their concerns will be given a fair hearing at the very highest levels. . . . "

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. Translation: As long as Obama kisses the Pentagon's ass they'll like him.

[Dinger]

3. Define "Kissing The Pantagon's Ass"

Please:)

[Creideiki]

6. Well, let's see...

"Kissing the Pentagon's ass," could translate as, "recruit felons, gang members, white supremacists, and people who couldn't handle high school rather than people who are gay."

You know, just for starters.

I take Clark's attitude on this as counterpoint to the adage that even a broken clock is right twice a day. Even someone who is otherwise sentient can have moments where they retreat into the brainstem every once in a while.

[Vincardog]

2. Did the Military forget they work for the civilians?

[Dinger]

4. Oh, I Bet That's It Exactly!

[bertman]

5. Obama repeatedly stated during the campaign that he would REBUILD and EXPAND our military.

So, of course, did every other candidate except Kucinich and Paul.

Rebuilding I can understand after the seven years of two wars. Expanding is lunacy. In a world where we are viewed as the source of oppression of billions of people, why would we not begin to judiciously pare down our military? Our overseas bases are largely there to respond to threats against corporate interests.

Counterterrorism is certainly a worthy job for our military, but do we need hundreds of billions more dollars of funding when we already have the world's largest security structure--foreign and domestic?

If Clinton was so good to the military, why didn't they back him with endorsements from retired generals and admirals like they did for Bush?

I fear we are in the grip of a military-industrial-governmental monster that devours everything in its path. Feeding it our sons and daughters and our treasury will only delay the day that it eats everything we offer it, then demands more.