Still Generally Speaking

Using another bloggers opinion to back up one’s own view or to dispute another’s view is a fool-hardy thing to do at best. However, while researching info on Wesley Clark, I used one item of this blogger’s source material, the International Herald Tribune--the blog link was provided by one of my commenters.

The IHT is presumably laden with some verifiable information that I can use to continue developing my own opinion about General Clark's character.

From the article:

What really happened, the U.S. officials said, was that the White House and top NATO military commanders in Europe framed two plans for swift military action once the Russian column was detected leaving its position and heading toward Kosovo.[snip]

Initially, as the Russian column moved through Serbia, the U.S.-backed plan called for a mobile spearhead of NATO troops to make the 40-kilometer (25-mile) dash to Pristina first and cut the access roads to the airport before the Russians could get there.

Later on June 11 the Clinton administration's security team, along with the two top U.S. commanders in NATO, backed a bolder but still small-scale operation, essentially a helicopter-led landing by a NATO task force at Pristina airport before the Russians there could settle in.

As we know now, neither option was taken due to many differing accounts of what went on between the two commanders and their superiors. Outsiders’ interpretations of this incident can differ, even when all use the acceptable forms of critical analysis. And, as the IHT cites nebulous “US officials” and the like, the veracity of events is open to even more speculation. Determining whether nothing would have happened or whether “World War III” [sic] would have ensued is an even bigger crap shoot.

Now, as boloboffin, one of my commenters in the previous Clark post, points out using information from a Jane’s link provided, Russian soldiers weren’t exactly flush in the logistics department back then--and likely not now. However, what he forgets is this: Russia had—and still has—weapons that don’t require feeding, uniforms or water. One presumes that General Jackson didn’t forget that, either. Also, it is even more fool-hardy to rely on reasonable actions and reactions from the leaders of what used to be the Советский Союз, especially if the present head-of state is any indication.

In short, however, who knows who know who might have tried to blow up da owl? Call it a toss-up. I concede that General Clark may not be a hot-head. One still wonders, however, in light of other reports about his behavior, what kind of person--what kind of leader--the good general is. Are all these stories giving a false picture of this potential POTUS? Or the true one? We will definitely see.

NOTE: Just so there’s no doubt about it, then-NATO peacekeeping force commander, General Sir Michael Jackson of Britain apparently did apparently rip into then-NATO supreme commander General Wesley Clark back in 1999 over the Pristina Airport incident. From an LA Times commentary by Paul Richter(registration required):

Clark ordered British Lt. Gen. Sir Michael Jackson to block the runway so the Russians couldn't bring in reinforcements. The British general refused, telling Clark: "I'm not starting World War III for you," Clark said in his 2001 book, "Waging Modern War."

(Thanks to Antidotal and boloboffin)

Comments

[boloboffin]

No question about whether the statement was made - Clark reports that it was. Jackson relishs the memory in this interview for the Telegraph:

Gen Jackson is not renowned for his love of Americans. When commanding the Nato troops in Kosovo, he refused an order from Nato's supreme commander, Gen Wesley Clark. The American wanted him to assault Pristina airport, which had just been taken by some Russians. Gen Jackson evidently told him: "I'm not going to start World War Three for you."

He smiles at the story. "I might have said something like that," he admits.

Another Telegraph article lays out Clark's theory of modern warfare:

But, far from bemoaning the old days when generals could fight their campaigns unmolested on remote and unseen battlefields, Gen Clark sees modern warfare as an opportunity rather than a hindrance.

"If you do it correctly, you can achieve remarkable military results without the traditional military expenditure and efforts by harnessing the full power of diplomatic and political assets of the modern state and bringing them to bear on your objective," said Gen Clark.

The paradox of Gen Clark's theory of modern warfare is that governments have to be ready to deploy traditional military power. In Kosovo, he said, Slobodan Milosevic only conceded when faced with a credible threat of a land offensive and once Russia had made clear it would not stop it.

What's the old saying about landing a plane? Any landing you walk away from is a good landing? The same sentiment should apply to situations like the Pristina airport incident. Everybody walked away in the end. You can't hope for a better course of action than that.

BTW: I bolded a comment of Clark's that I believe illuminates his stance on the Iraqi war resolution. He's consistent about supporting the resolution as leverage, but decries the wasted opportunities for coalition building in the Bush approach to war.

[King of Fools]

I keep hearing the comment "Resolution as Leverage". I don't have any problem with Resolution being used as leverage, but what gives resolution leverage? The definition of resolution is "something that is resolved; firmness of resolve". It is basically a firm decision that has been made.

After years of resolutions without results and without action, the whole idea of "Resolution as Leverage" has become laughable. U.S. foes were well aware that our Resolution Lever was quite flaccid and presented no threat. This is also one reason why U.N. Resolutions accomplish very little.

In order for "Resolution as Leverage" to work, there must be true resolve behind the resolution. There also has to be a track record of action when the lever does not accomplish the desired result. The complaint that we used force because the resolution was just for leverage and not for force is an untenable position, IMHO.

[MommaBear]

The old T.R. saw about the big stick only works when the culprits see the big stick being used!

[boloboffin]

KoF, MB: You're absolutely right. Clark's mission in Kosovo was hampered by the resolution not to use ground troops. The second Telegraph article shows that Clark understands the importance of using leverage correctly. In Kosovo, [Clark] said, Slobodan Milosevic only conceded when faced with a credible threat of a land offensive and once Russia had made clear it would not stop it.

Clark's beef with the Iraqi war is what Bush did with his leverage. He didn't build a coalition - he chased it away so that he could pursue the war free of real input from allies (other than Britian and compliant countries willing to accept our price for coalition). And there's no joy in now seeing Bush floundering in his quagmire, because he's dragged our military and our country's reputation along with him.

[Breaker]

boloboffin:
1. Iraq is not a quagmire.

2. I guess your definition of "coalition" must include France and Germany. President Bush did not build the kind of coalition that you desire because de Villepin, Chirac and Schroeder campaigned to defeat a united coalition of Western nations. Chirac brazenly stated that France would veto a UN resolution with teeth so that France could continue to profiteer off of Iraq's misery. Face it, the French are not allies - they are enemies.

3. Our reputation grows by the minute as we stay the course in Iraq - in contrast to Clinton and Albright who cut and ran from Mogadishu and failed to confront bin Laden or Saddam. The debacle in Somalia as well as other Clinton fiascos directly contributed to the willingness of al Qeada to attack in New York.

4. Clark is impulsive but lacks real guts. Clark is no Tommy Franks.

[boloboffin]

1. Iraq is a quagmire.

2. The French are suffering under a rightwing government they were forced to accept just like us. The French are not our enemies.

3. I suppose the terrorists learned a different lesson from Reagan bailing out of Lebanon or Bush I stopping at the Kuwaiti border or landing us in Mogadishu in the first place. And Bush II hampering investigations into Saudi funding of Al Qaeda had nothing to do with Al Qaeda's willingness to attack, either, I suppose.

4. AWOL Bush is no Clark, either.

[baldilocks]

You just stepped into a big hole here by bringing up the "AWOL" Bush baloney on an ex active duty Air Force/present day AF Reservist's blog.

Hint: things work differently when you're only required to serve two days per month and two weeks per year as opposed to 24/7, 365. Look up the term NARS. Otherwise, save for the rest of the "AWOL" screechers who don't know what they're talking about.

[Breaker]

boloboffin:

There you go again.

1. Quagmire? Your support is a baseless blog and a hit piece by defeated former Democratic Senator Max Cleland. That does not stand up against my support by a bipartisan congressional team that just returned from Iraq. You score zero.

2. French? Not enemies? You cite Molly Ivans? BUHWAHAHAHA! So why did Total Elf get an oil contract from Saddam? Where did the oil for palaces money go? France was the chief of the audit committee. France Right Wing? France is a socialist state run by a club of career bureaucrats. You score zero.

3. Reagan bail out of Lebanon - a contribution to the Americans are wimps myth but irrelevant to Clark. Reagan was preoccupied with beating the Soviets in the Cold War - which he did with guts. You score no points. Bush I stop at Kuwait? That's the price of the coalition that you say you want - it was part of the Desert Storm coalition deal. Way to run to the wrong end zone. You score points for me.

4. President Bush AWOL? A Bush-hater myth debunked by the NY Times, Boston Globe and the defunk George magazine - the magazine of John F. Kennedy, Jr., may he rest in peace.

Those who trained and flew with Bush, until he gave up flying in April 1972, said he was among the best pilots in the 111th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron. In the 22-month period between the end of his flight training and his move to Alabama, Bush logged numerous hours of duty, well above the minimum requirements for so-called ''weekend warriors.''

President Bush flew the F-102 fighter inteceptor - a notoriously dangerous aircraft. That takes guts. You are right - Clark does not measure up to President Bush. You score zero.

Breakers 63; boloboffin 0

[baldilocks]

France: Where are Ms. Ivins' links to the stated facts in her opinion piece? Assuming all facts in her piece are accurate, however, it's nice of her to trumpet France's WWII achievments. However, to paraphrase one Ms. Janet Jackson: what have they done for us lately or ever?(BTW, I used to be a regular reader of Ms. Ivins' work. It's part of what contributed to my right turn.)

Quagmire: What a fiskable piece Mr. Cleland has here! I'd like to do so, but I have other stuff in the hopper.

However, I couldn't resist this tidbit:

In his campaign for president he gives no indication of wanting to go to war. In fact, he decries the overextension of American military might and says other nations must do more. However, unbeknownst to the American public, the president's own Pentagon advisers have already cooked up a plan to go to war. All they are looking for is an excuse.

During GWB's campaign, terrorists hadn't attacked American soil.

Assuming the Pentagon advisors cooking scenario is true, do you think that they just pulled up an attack plan up out of the blue on January 20, 2001? Or maybe they had been working on it since 1998? Hmm.

[Breaker]

boloboffin: More points on the board:

Bush I went into Somolia on a humanitarian relief mission. Clinton and Albright changed the mission to a "get the warlord" mission and failed to provide the armor support requested by the Ranger and Delta force commanders. Go read Blackhawk Down.

Breakers 70, boloboffin 0

[boloboffin]

Wow. I see what you mean, baldilocks. I'd like to think you would allow Gen Lafayette as something the French did for us at some point in our history. I'm not ready to call them enemies yet - rivals in many things, and allies in still others, but enemies?

The Ivins article sticks to history and her own experience. What do you think needs a link? Well, there are the books she talks about, but I doubt their texts are on the web anywhere.

Breaker, Breaker, Breaker: Your play-by-play is a tad biased. The only thing I'm allowing is the AWOL stuff. From your links and baldilock's comments, I found a lot of stuff I didn't know before. I didn't see anyone denying that Bush was grounded from flying his obsolete plane for failure to accomplish his physical, but I'm willing to accept that he made up the time he missed, and that was no big deal. I'm a reasonable guy.

But you're slamming my sources? When you quote the spin jobs from Weekly Standard and hit pieces from Friedman? Riverbend's blog is for real, by the by - you can scout around and vet it for yourself. Take a look at what it's like to live in Bush's Iraq.

And I love this sentence from your WS: The only real solution is, somehow, to privatize Iraq's oil riches, cutting the state out of the loop. Which has been the point all along, hasn't it? Global oil production is due to peak any day now, and somebody's got to have control of that Iraqi sweet crude. Couldn't be Saddam (and I'm dead serious about that), can't be the Iraqis through their government, sure as hades won't be Total Elf anymore...hmmm, who's it going to be? BP? ExxonMobil? ChevronTexaco?

To get back to things "relevant to Clark", I'll put Clark's record up against Bush's record anyday, even now. What was Bush doing when Clark was bleeding to death in Vietnam? Which one of Bush's failed business was sputtering along when Clark was bringing the Bosnia conflict in for a landing? Yeah, let's put the resumes side by side...

[Breaker]

boloboffin:

Skipping over your irrelevancies, let's stack President Bush's resume against Clark's:

Bush: President of the United States: Commander in Chief. Reports to the People.

General Clark: Supreme Allied Commander - Europe - relieved of Command by Bill Clinton - sort of failed. Reports to a bunch of NATO heads of state and Reports to the Joint Chiefs, Secretary of Defense and the President of the United States.

I'd say Mr. Clark is a tad outranked. Once someone reaches the Presidency, the rest of the resume does not matter any more. I'd even have to say that about Mr. Clinton.

[baldilocks]

Granted about Lafayette. However, lately means later than the eighteenth century. General Lafayette is dead (God rest his soul) and one could argue that the last trustworthy French leader helped the Founding Fathers out simply to torque off his country’s British rivals. How about some live French examples?

I'll let you and breaker have at it.