To Sir With Love - A Wesley Clark Blog

The Military vs. the GOP

The Military vs. the GOP - Are they falling out of love? By Timothy Noah | Slate 9/29/03

Noah suggests that from top to bottom the military has issues with both the administration's strategy and tactics. Especially ironic is a passage he quotes from Rumsfeld: A Personal Portrait:

[W]ithout civilian control the military, especially the staff of the joint chiefs, inevitably became the managers of their own affairs. This came more and more to mean that military promotions were determined on the basis not of ability but of congeniality with one's fellows. (emphasis added)

Isn't this the criticism Rumsfeld's fellow travellers have been levelling at Clark? That instead of being a unifying figure, his military record reveals a polarizing and de-stabilizing force? Makes you think that Rumsfeld, much like those on the far left, regard the military as a necessary evil and a spending black hole.

Speaking specifically of Gen. Clark, Noah suggests Clark has taken flak from other candidates for being a Johnny-come-lately to the Democratic Party: He voted for Reagan, praised George W. Bush, etc., before entering the Democratic nomination race. But this misses an important point: Never before in the modern era has a politically ambitious high-ranking military officer found it desirable, even from a purely careerist perspective, to associate himself with the Democrats. (emphasis added.) An important taboo has been broken.

But most damning is this appraisal of current policy by Anthony Zinni, the former U.S. commander for the Middle East: This administration came in with an idea of transforming the military into something—God knows what—lighter, smaller, quicker, whatever. The bill payer was going to be ground units, heavy units. And now we have a shortage of exactly what we needed out there. …

They should never be put on a battlefield without a strategic plan, not only for the fighting—our generals will take care of that—but for the aftermath and winning that war. Where are we, the American people, if we accept this, if we accept this level of sacrifice without that level of planning? Almost everyone in this room, of my contemporaries—our feelings and our sensitivities were forged on the battlefields of Vietnam; where we heard the garbage and the lies, and we saw the sacrifice. We swore never again would we do that. We swore never again would we allow it to happen. And I ask you, is it happening again?

I suspect that many of us who did our best to avoid service in the sixties and partied through the seventies will be among those most insistent that the troops be treated fairly. We'll see how applicable WKC's quality of life reforms in the service are applicable to domestic problems, but by treating the armed forces as a touchstone of contemporary citizenship, the general can't help but expose the hypocrisy of the chickenhawks.

Media Whores Online | Neophyte

Media Whores Online | Neophyte Also a Natural

The NH Town Meeting 9/26 was very impressive. See my transcript of the general's opening remarks.

NH Town Hall 9/26, WKC's opening remarks transcribed

NH Town Hall 9/26, WKC's opening remarks (via CSPAN)
Transcribed from CSPAN, double checked for accuracy.

Streaming video at CSPAN.
--------------------------

My name is Wes Clark. I'm the newest Democrat in the race. I'm probably the newest Democrat in this party. I'm running for president and I want your support.

What I really want to do tonight is hear from you. I want to know what's on your mind. I want to know what the issues are, that you're thinking about. I want to have a dialogue with you, but I'd just like to cover three things very quickly:

Number One: Why I'm a Democrat.
Number Two: Why I'm in this race.
And Number Three: What I think I can do for the United States as president.

Number One: Why I'm a Democrat. Well, I joined the United States military at the age of 17. I went to West Point, I raised my right hand, . . . looked out on the Hudson River. There were 807 of us. We believed in the pledge that John Kennedy brought to our hearts. We believed in trying to do something for our country. It was a difficult time in American history: we'd been through the Bay of Pigs, there'd been some nasty shenanigans between President Kennedy and Premier Khrushchev over in Vienna, we were entering the Berlin crisis, we were heading toward the Cuban missile crisis. We were patriotic and we believed.

I served for 34 years. I got out in the summer of 2000. I'd never been involved in partisan politics. I served Democratic presidents, Republican presidents. I was around the Ford White House. I knew people like Rumsfeld and Cheney, and Paul O'Neill, the former Treasury secretary. And I'd been around the Democratic White House. I was there during the Clinton administration. So I knew the whole Clinton team and worked very closely with them as well. And for me politics was something that the military served its political leaders but you didn't engage in it other than to vote.

But when I looked at where the country was headed, I looked at the administration that took us without due reason into war in Iraq without an imminent threat and claimed it to be a pre-emptive attack without really assembling the evidence, but rather seeking evidence to justify, I guess, some predetermined course of action. I saw it was wrong.

I said at the time, there was no imminent threat. I said there were other ways to handle the problem. I warned that there weren't enough ground troops. And I suspected there wasn't a good plan for what happened afterwards. Tragically, it's all true.

I was in Walter Reed Army Hospital not too long ago and visited a young man who was there as one of the army patients. I've known him since he was five or six years old, his daddy worked for me. He enlisted in the army right after high school, he became a combat engineer, he went to Iraq, and they were clearing a minefield.

And of course, the Iraqis had mis-marked the minefield and as he approached a hundred meters away from where the mine was supposed to be, he stepped on a mine and he lost his leg below the knee. He's one of more than a thousand seriously injured U.S. soldiers, 200 dead, no telling what the count is among the Iraqi's.

We have an administration that doesn't have an adequate foreign policy. It hasn't made us safer and it's made us less respected in the world and it's brought us into Iraq where we're spending billions of dollars in a mission that wasn't strictly speaking necessary.

Then I looked at home and I realized that at home we weren't living up to the motto that I grew up with in the United States Army. We're a volunteer army. The only people who stay in the United States Army are people who want to. You have to persuade the soldier and the family that this is good for them.

And so we adopted a motto that we thought could capture the essence of what the United States Army stood for and we called it, "be all you could be." Many of you remember it. It was a great recruiting slogan for fifteen or twenty years for the army. But it was a lot more than a slogan. It was a principle that guided the way we tried to take care of men and women and the families in the army.

My wife and I worked for better education for kids, we worked for better housing for married and single soldiers, we worked for better health care, we worked for a proper environment, we worked for quality time for families. We did all these things because we believed in trying to help the men and women in uniform.

And when I got out, I found how much opportunity there was in this country to do more. And as I put together the foreign policy, the internationalism that I believed in, the belief in the development of human potential that I believed in, and I checked off my, sort of, core principles . . .

Well, I'm pro-affirmative action, I'm really proud of what we did in the United States Army, we did it well. I'm pro-choice because I think that it is a woman's choice and a woman's responsibility. I'm pro-environment, I'm pro-education, I'm pro-health, I'm pro-civil rights, I fought a war for human rights, and perhaps most of all, I'm pro-jobs, because if people want to contribute, they deserve the right to work. So if I was going to join a political party, I was either going to be the loneliest Republican in the United States of America, or I was going to be a very happy Democrat, and I'm so proud I'm a Democrat. I thank you for that.

People started coming to me about a year ago, maybe a little over a year ago. And they said, "you know, we've seen you on CNN, we've read your book, we know something about you, you've got to stand for office. You're saying these things, we believe `em, they've got resonance, you've got to stand for office.

Well, . . . I wasn't sure. It's a huge step to transition from the military into business, and I didn't want to go sell weapons and I tried not to rely on all my Pentagon buddies for consulting contracts. I didn't do very much of that at all. And the thought of transitioning to elective politics, well, it's like my wife said, she said, "You don't know anything about it," and so she was right, as she always is.

And so I continued to speak out, I thought maybe I can help, I'll be a commentator, I'll keep my commenting job on CNN, during the war I'll be able to brag about the men and women in uniform `cause I love `em, I'll be able to help the American public understand what's goin' on. A lot of people came to me and said, "You know, you're doing something very important by commenting and being on the "Aaron Brown Show," and so forth, so I felt good about that.

And then I came up here to New Hampshire in May and one of the people in the "Draft Clark" movement was there and she handed me a thousand letters. I was on "Tim Russert" in June and he said, "Will you consider at least running for office?" and I had to say, "If there's this draft movement out there, I guess I gotta consider it," and the pressure finally built up and it finally ended up, I was speaking to the Long Island Foreign Affairs Association about three or four weeks ago, and they said, "Do you thing we'll need to re- institute the draft?"

I said, "No, I don't think so because at least for the United States Army, we don't want people in there who don't want to be there. We want volunteers because you know, that's the way you'd run any organization, you don't want to force people to be there." And I said, "but here's what I'd like," I said, "This is a group of very well-to-do people who are all very civic minded," and I said, "So I'd like you to dedicate your first-born child or grand-child to the service of the armed forces of the United States. Would you do that?"

Well, some people nodded, some people laughed, and one guy said, "We'll do that when you answer the draft we've got on you and volunteer to stand for office." And I realized that I'd crossed the line. At that point, I was speaking out, I was committed and emotionally I wanted to do something to help the country.

I'm running because I think I can help this country. I think I've got the background, I've got the leadership experience. At home, I've got the leadership experience. Abroad, I've dealt at the head of state level, the minister of foreign affairs level, the heads of government, I've negotiated with some of the worst war criminals in human history, and I know what they're like, I've helped lead our forces in combat, so that's why I'm running.

And if you elect me, I've got a vision for America and I'm gonna stop right here because I want to hear what you all want to ask me, and I'll explain my vision as we go through, yes ma'am.

The 100 Year Vision by Wesley K. Clark

The 100 Year Vision by Wesley K. Clark

Looking ahead 100 years, the United States will be defined by our environment, both our physical environment and our legal, Constitutional environment. America needs to remain the most desirable country in the world, attracting talent and investment with the best physical and institutional environment in the world. But achieving our goals in these areas means we need to begin now. Environmentally, it means that we must do more to protect our natural resources, enabling us to extend their economic value indefinitely through wise natural resource extraction policies that protect the beauty and diversity of our American ecosystems - our seacoasts, mountains, wetlands, rain forests, alpine meadows, original timberlands and open prairies. We must balance carefully the short- term needs for commercial exploitation with longer-term respect for the natural gifts our country has received. We may also have to assist market-driven adjustments in urban and rural populations, as we did in the 19th Century with the Homestead Act.

Institutionally, our Constitution remains the wellspring of American freedom and prosperity. We must retain a pluralistic democracy, with institutional checks and balances that reflect the will of the majority while safeguarding the rights of the minority. We will seek to maximize the opportunities for private gain, consistent with concern for the public good. And the Clark administration will institute a culture of transparency and accountability, in which we set the world standard for good government. As new areas of concern arise - in the areas of intellectual property, bioethics, and other civil areas - we will assure continued access to the courts, as well as to the other branches of government, and a vibrant competitive media that informs our people and enables their effective participation in civic life. And even more importantly, we will assure in meeting the near term challenges of the day - whether they be terrorism or something else - that, we don't compromise the freedoms and rights which are the very essence of the America we are protecting.

If we are to remain competitive we will have to do more to develop our "human potential." To put it in a more familiar way, we should help every American to "be all he or she can be." For some this means only providing a framework of opportunities - for others it means more direct assistance in areas such as education, health care, and retirement security. And these are thirty year challenges - educating young people from preschool until they are at their most productive, helping adults transition from job to job and profession to profession during their adult lives; promoting physical vigor and good health through public health measures, improved diagnostics, preventive health, and continuing health care to extend longevity and productivity to our natural limits; and strengthening retirement security, simply because it is right; first for our society to assure that all its members who have contributed throughout their lifetimes are assured a minimal standard of living, and secondly to free the American worker and family to concentrate on the challenges of today. Such long-term challenges must be addressed right away, with a new urgency.

We have a solid foundation for meeting these challenges in many of the principles and programs already present today. They need not be enumerated here, except to argue for giving them the necessary priorities and resources. We can never ensure that every one has the same education, or health care, or retirement security, nor would we want to do so. But all Americans are better off when we ensure that each American will have fundamental educational skills and access to further educational development throughout their lives; that each American will have access to the diagnostic, preventive and acute health care and medicines needed for productive life, as well as some basic level of financial security in his or her retirement.

To do this we will have to get the resources and responsibilities right. In the first place, this means allocating responsibilities properly between public and private entities. Neither government nor "the market" is a universal tool - each must be used appropriately, whether the issues are in security, education, health or retirement. Then we must reexamine private versus public revenues and expenditures. We need to return to the aims of the 1990's when we sought to balance our federal budget and reduce the long- term public debt. Finally, it means properly allocating public responsibilities to regulate, outsource, or operate. This means retaining government regulation where necessary to meet public needs, and balancing the federal government's strengths of standardization and progressive financing with greater insights into the particular needs and challenges that State and local authorities bring.

As we work on education, health care, and retirement security we must also improve the business climate in the United States. This is not simply a matter of reducing interest rates and stimulating demand. Every year, this economy must create more than a million new jobs, just to maintain the same levels of employment, and to reduce unemployment to the levels achieved in the Clinton Administration, we must do much more immediately. This is in part a matter of smoothing the business cycle, with traditional monetary and fiscal tools, but as we improve communications and empower more international trade and finance, firms will naturally shift production and services to areas where the costs are lower. In the near term we should aim to create in America the best business environment in the world - using a variety of positive incentives to keep American jobs and businesses here, attract business from abroad, and to encourage the creation of new jobs, principally through the efforts of small business. These are not new concerns, but they must be addressed and resourced with a new urgency in facing the increasing challenges of technology and free trade. And labor must assist, promoting the attitudes, skills, education and labor mobility to enable long overdue hikes in the minimum wage in this country.

Quick Take on NH Town Hall

Quick Take on NH Town Hall Meeting (broadcast on C-Span, 9/26/03)

The format itself was effective and lent itself to intensely personal expressions of concern from those in attendance. Compared to the "men and women on the street" posing questions in the Cal debate, the NH folks were smart, intense and focused.

Two women stood out, and I thought the general's responses were powerful. The first lady spoke from her wheelchair and recited a frightening list of physical afflictions (as the very fit general locked in unblinklingly on what she was saying). It seemed to me as if she was going to ask about catastrophic health care, but at the last moment she asked, "Would you deny me access to medical marijuana?" Clark's response was literally without hesitation. "No," he said and left it at that. Partisan as I am, I thought it showed a unity of compassion and decisiveness, and not a hint of politics.

Later, a very angry and distraught woman, who had served many years in the armed forces, confronted the general about her experience with sexual abuse while under arms.

The general enfolded this wounded citizen and, to my mind with no air of patronization, apologized for his part as a senior commander in not ensuring her rights to justice "up through the line of command." (Cf. Cheney telling Russert that the CIA operative sent to Nigeria who later reported essentially "no worries," was so far below him in the hierarchy that he could not possibly be expected to know what the man said.)

Bottom line: he asked her to take him aside after the meeting so that he could follow up on her case.

Another perfect marriage of politics, policy, and moral standards. Now, I hope the general keeps us abreast of this citizen's fight for dignity.

Speaking of which, he wants to make the Patriot Act completely transparent. Having previously genuflected before the the Bill of Rights, WKC asserted, in effect, that the PAct is guilty until proven innocent, and that it needs to be audited constantly to justify itself.

Soundbite: "They say they need to know what books we're taking out of the library. I'd like to know who asked for that, how many times and what for?" Oy, did he brook this kind of interference in his own command strategies? (Let us note, however, that with all the mishagas over Kosovo, no one criticizes WKC as the ultimate desk jockey while on assignment as the Joint Chief's own chief strategist and security adviser.)

Another lady asked Clark if he would encourage or discourage a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriages, Clark gave another one word answer, "Discourage."

All in all, terrific television and a quantum leap in engagement for the general. Very well done.

Rep. Charles B. Rangel Endorses Wesley Clark for president

Rep. Charles B. Rangel Issues Statement in Support of General Wesley Clark's Presidential Candidacy

As a war veteran wounded in Korea, no one knows better than I the tragedy of war. In Iraq, people are losing their lives every day. Our troops are in harm's way, the human and financial costs continue to rise, and there is no end in sight. I think of my army unit which went to Korea in 1950. 53 year later, it is still there.

The decision to go to war in Iraq cannot be rescinded, but the exit strategy - how and when we will bring our brave men and women home - is a vital issue. So far, we have no indication from the current Administration that they have a plan. Some pundits have said the U.S. occupation in Iraq may last for several generations, and it is costing a billion dollars a week.

That is why I think it is so important that we as a nation change our direction as well as change our president.

I agree with former President Clinton that Democrats are fortunate that we have such a wide selection of presidential candidates. I cannot believe that the American people - while we all still feel the pain of the September 11th attacks - will think that George W. Bush, no matter how many miscalculations he makes, is the only person who can be president. We need a leader who can inspire us to rise above this time of tragedy and economic gloom and bring hope that the future will be more secure and more prosperous.

It is clear that Four-star General Wesley Clark can be that leader.

Wesley Clark is one of the greatest Americans alive today. During his 34 years in the army, he not only rose to become NATO Supreme Allied Commander, he also earned the silver star, two bronze stars and a purple heart fighting for his country. He commanded the successful NATO military action in Kosovo that saved millions of people while keeping allied casualties to a minimum.

If the Republicans think they have an edge on the issue of national security, Wesley Clark takes that off-the-table. No one can challenge the General's national security credentials or his preparation to be commander-in-chief. No one can question his patriotism. And no landing on an aircraft carrier or appearance in a flight suit can replace a purple heart and a silver star as a demonstration of service to this country.

He is a former military man who understands the costs of war and the necessity of the cooperation of the international community. He is an American citizen who knows that you cannot have a world-class economy and keep jobs in America if we fail to invest in public education and run up massive deficits.

What has made America great is that we are not afraid to dream, and to seek to make those dreams reality. Now more than ever, Americans must not be afraid to dream and to look forward to better times and better leadership. Wesley Clark's candidacy makes our dreams about a better future more realistic than ever.

The General understands that no terrorist, no matter how dangerous, should deny Americans the right to their dreams. The current Administration has abandoned so many Americans looking for a job and dreaming of a chance to better their lives and their families. This Administration has used the war on terrorism as an excuse to deny Americans reliable health care, decent education and child care, affordable housing, equal opportunity, and civil rights. If we cannot afford to help people fulfil their dreams because we have to continue unfair tax cuts for the wealthy at the same time we spend billions on the military, then the terrorists will have already won.

The dream of Wesley Clark's candidacy is now reality. I have talked to Wesley Clark and talked to his supporters. I am convinced that his entry has changed the political dynamic of the campaign and will improve the quality of debate on both defense and economic issues.

Clark & the Republicans |Talking Points Memo

Clark & the Republicans |Talking Points Memo 9/26 | by Joshua Micah Marshall

Marshall continues to counter criticisms of WKC with research and well-reasoned arguments. Today he takes up just how much should be made of the general's speaking at Republican events and seeming to support the administration before joining CNN just before 9/11.

He concludes: There's this idea afoot that Clark got into the Democratic party out of some sort of opportunism, and that this happened after 9/11. Frankly, this makes no sense. Is there really any time over the last two years that getting into the Democratic party would have seemed like a good way to get into office or advance politically? Particularly in a state like Arkansas which has been trending Republican? I mean, sad to say, but I don't see it. At the moment, President Bush is looking weaker and weaker. But that's pretty recent. Clark is clearly new to the Democratic party on many levels. But as explanations go, this strikes me as an awfully weak one.

Hack's Target: Reporting for Duty - Wesley Clark

Hack's Target: Reporting for Duty: Wesley Clark

Retired lt. general David Hackworth, oft quoted by the right for coining the memorable aspersion "perfumed prince," is man enough to change his mind in this column for SFTT.org (Soldiers For the Truth). Interviewing Clark for Maxim (have they also interviewed Lieberman?), Hackworth raves: For the record, I never served with Clark. But after spending three hours interviewing the man for Maxim's November issue, I'm impressed. He is insightful, he has his act together, he understands what makes national security tick and he thinks on his feet somewhere around Mach 3. No big surprise, since he graduated first in his class from West Point, which puts him in the super-smart set with Robert E. Lee, Douglas MacArthur and Maxwell Taylor.

Almost more interesting is Hackworth's expression of the professional soldier's disdain for the chickenhawks: No doubt he's made his share of enemies. He doesn't suffer fools easily and wouldn't have allowed the dilettantes who convinced Dubya to do Iraq to even cut the White House lawn. So he should prepare for a fair amount of dart-throwing from detractors he's ripped into during the past three decades.

Eating a little crow, Hackworth acknowledges Hey, I am one of those: I took a swing at Clark during the Kosovo campaign when I thought he screwed up the operation, and I called him a "Perfumed Prince." Only years later did I discover from his book and other research that I was wrong; the blame should have been worn by British timidity and William Cohen, U.S. SecDef at the time.

Perhaps most encouraging is this homely little detail: At the interview, Clark came along without the standard platoon of handlers and treated the little folks who poured the coffee and served the bacon and eggs with exactly the same respect and consideration he gave the biggies in the dining room like my colleague Larry King and Bob Tisch, the Regency Hotel's owner. An appealing common touch.

Someone who attended the DNC fundraiser after the Democratic debate yesterday reported that Clark made it a point to go back to the kitchen at the hotel's ballroom to thank the staff for their efforts. Ahh, the gentile courtesy of the real Southerner.

Hackworth's conclusion is the stuff of double-truck newspaper ads for blockbuster movies: But if he wins the election, don't expect an Andrew Jackson field-soldier type. Clark's an intellectual, and his military career is more like Ike's, that of a staff guy and a brilliant high-level commander. Can he make tough decisions? Bet on it. Just like Ike did during his eight hard but prosperous years as president.

Maybe's he's looking for a job. Why should he be different?

The Clark Critique - Newsweek

The Clark Critique - Newsweek excerpt from General Clark's forthcoming book, Winning Modern Wars

In the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, many in the Bush administration seemed most focused on a prospective move against Iraq. This was the old idea of “state sponsorship”—even though there was no evidence of Iraqi sponsorship of 9/11 whatsoever—and the opportunity to “roll it all up.” I could imagine the arguments. War to unseat Saddam Hussein promised concrete, visible action.

I WENT BACK through the Pentagon in November 2001, and one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan. So, I thought, this is what they mean when they talk about “draining the swamp.” It was evidence of the Cold War approach: Terrorism must have a “state sponsor,” and it would be much more effective to attack a state than to chase after individuals, nebulous organizations, and shadowy associations.

He said it with reproach—with disbelief, almost—at the breadth of the vision. I moved the conversation away, for this was not something I wanted to hear. And it was not something I wanted to see moving forward, either. What a mistake! I reflected—as though the terrorism were simply coming from these states. Well, that might be true for Iran, which still supported Hezbollah, and Syria, complicit in aiding Hamas and Hezbollah. But neither Hezbollah nor Hamas were targeting Americans. Why not build international power against Al Qaeda? But if we prioritized the threat against us from any state, surely Iran was at the top of the list, with ongoing chemical and biological warfare programs, clear nuclear aspirations, and an organized, global terrorist arm.

And what about the real sources of terrorists—U.S. allies in the region like Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia? Wasn’t it the repressive policies of the first, and the corruption and poverty of the second, that were generating many of the angry young men who became terrorists? And what of the radical ideology and direct funding spewing from Saudi Arabia? Wasn’t that what was holding the radical Islamic movement together? What about our NATO allies, whose cities were being used as staging bases and planning headquarters? Why weren’t we putting greater effort into broader preventive measures?

The way to beat terrorists was to take away their popular support. Target their leaders individually, demonstrate their powerlessness, roll up the organizations from the bottom. I thought it would be better to drive them back into one or two states that had given them support, and then focus our efforts there.

And if we wanted to go after states supporting terrorism, why not first go to the United Nations, present the evidence against Al Qaeda, set up a tribunal for prosecuting international terrorism? Why not develop resolutions that would give our counterterrorist efforts the greater force of international law and gain for us more powerful leverage against any state that might support terrorists, then use international law and backed by the evidence to rope in the always nuanced Europeans that still kept open trade with Iran and the others?

Business Week Online | Clark: What's Wrong with U.S. Policy in Iraq

Business Week Online | September 29, 2003 | Clark: What's Wrong with U.S. Policy in Iraq

Business Week's Bruce Nussbaum gives WKC's forthcoming Winning Modern Wars: Iraq, Terrorism and the American Empire a positive review and paraphrases some highlights.

His new book . . . is, in effect, Clark's campaign manifesto, providing insights into what he believes and what he would do as Commander-in-Chief. As a book, it is a smart take on the battlefield tactics used in Iraq as well as a tough-minded critique of the military strategy and the geopolitical doctrine followed by the Bush Administration.

Agree or disagree with the four-star general, here is what he says:

-- The war in Iraq "has thus far been a perfect example of dominating an enemy force but failing to win the victory." Clark says the Administration made the classic mistake of equating the defeat of an enemy with achieving its larger political goal. That goal was to set up a democratic, stable, secular Iraq which would help stop terrorism. Clark argues that this required higher force levels and a different strategy . . . . The Pentagon's war strategy, in effect, had "a profound flaw -- the endgame."

-- The war in Iraq has weakened, not strengthened, the fight against terrorism "by diverting attention, resources and leadership, alienating allied supporters and serving as a rallying point for anyone wishing to do harm to the U.S. and Americans." . . . The Administration was caught up in the Cold War policy template of fighting states, not supranational terrorists such as al Qaeda, and was predisposed to attack Iraq well before September.

Safety can come only through joint intelligence and police work with close allies in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, he says, and through a greater focus on homeland security; regime change is a diversion. "Not only did the Bush Administration misunderstand the lessons of modern war, it made a policy blunder of historic proportions," he writes.

-- The Rumsfeld doctrine of making the U.S. military a smaller, more mobile, more high-tech force is responsible for the failure to capture or kill Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and for the postwar chaos in Iraq. Clark, a four-star U.S. Army general, places the current debate over transforming the military within a broader fight between the Air Force and Army that goes back to World War II. This is one of the more intriguing aspects of his book. Clark says that the Air Force has been trying for decades to prove that it can win wars alone, without the Army, through decisive and devastating air power. Rumsfeld, of course, is an ex-Navy pilot and a believer in air power. Clark concedes that air power won out in Serbia and Kosovo. But while he backs high-tech warfare, Clark also sees boots on the ground as essential. Special Ops units working with the Air Force couldn't destroy al Qaeda, but a division of Army soldiers might have. "It was a strategic opportunity lost."

-- Iraq may destroy the all-volunteer Army. Clark spends dozens of pages exalting the bravery and abilities of the men and women of the armed forces in his book. But he warns that the U.S. Army is not an army of occupation. The "quasi-imperial" America envisioned by the neocons in the Bush Administration is not matched by the military force that is supposed to create it. Nor should it be, according to Clark. He argues that the U.S. military is built for war-fighting, not long-term policing.

-- American unilateralism is bad military policy and bad foreign policy. Clark sharply criticizes the 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States of America paper that postulates a unilateral, preemptive foreign policy for the country. . . . In effect, he says that the U.S. doesn't do nation-building very well and should outsource it to the U.N.

Nussbaum concludes with this thumbs-up appraisal: Winning Modern Wars succeeds on many levels, including the Stephen E. Ambrose-like description of battles and tactics used by General Tommy Franks in pacing the war. Clark clearly admires the courage and capabilities of the soldiers on the ground. But he also presents a cogent critique of Pentagon leadership and White House politics. As a military man, his insights go beyond the predictable Republican-Democratic partisan dialogue. It's a valuable perspective no matter which candidate you vote for.

The New Republic Online: Mad About You

The New Republic Online: Mad About You, The Case for Bush Hatred by Jonathan Chait, 9/29/03

No stunning insights in Chait's analysis of why Bush inspires such a viscerally negative response, but he articulates what many only sputter.

Highlights:

Bush is never called to task for the radical disconnect between how he got into office and what he has done since arriving. Reporters don't ask if he has succeeded in "changing the tone." Even the fact that Bush lost the popular vote is hardly ever mentioned. Liberals hate Bush not because he has succeeded but because his success is deeply unfair and could even be described as cheating.

Conservatives believe liberals resent Bush in part because he is a rough-hewn Texan. In fact, they hate him because they believe he is not a rough-hewn Texan but rather a pampered frat boy masquerading as one, with his pickup truck and blue jeans serving as the perfect props to disguise his plutocratic nature.

Every aspect of Bush's personal history points to the ways in which American life continues to fall short of the meritocratic ideal.

Say what you will about WKC, he is meritocracy defined.

But perhaps most infuriating of all is the fact that liberals do not see their view of Bush given public expression. It's not that Bush has been spared from any criticism--far from it. It's that certain kinds of criticism have been largely banished from mainstream discourse.

This is why it hardly bothers me that Clark voted for Nixon or Reagan. "Discourse" should be a bi-partisan goal and thus an attempt to shine light upon the gray areas. Clinton's balanced budget came at the expense of certain entitlements. Similarly, Clark's worldview, particularly as it concerns foreign policy, might rightly be informed by significant Republican presidents.

The persistence of an absurdly heroic view of Bush is what makes his dullness so maddening. To be a liberal today is to feel as though you've been transported into some alternative universe in which a transparently mediocre man is revered as a moral and strategic giant. You ask yourself why Bush is considered a great, or even a likeable, man. You wonder what it is you have been missing. Being a liberal, you probably subject yourself to frequent periods of self-doubt. But then you conclude that you're actually not missing anything at all. You decide Bush is a dullard lacking any moral constraints in his pursuit of partisan gain, loyal to no principle save the comfort of the very rich, unburdened by any thoughtful consideration of the national interest, and a man who, on those occasions when he actually does make a correct decision, does so almost by accident.

There. That feels better.

Why Money Won't Matter

Why Money Won't Matter - Jonathan Alter in Newsweek 9/29/03

Newsweek's cover story "package" is both less provocative and more informative than most of the TV and newspaper coverage has been so far and deserves to be blogged in total. This piece on money explores the "nuances" in a way the general can appreciate.

Fund-raising at this stage is a fancy poll. You can have half as much cash as the next guy and still win. The issue: Clark’s political skills If Wes Clark goes nowhere, you can already hear the tired punditry: He didn’t have enough cash. He started too late. Blah, blah, blah. This analysis has already begun, though it is close to meaningless. LET’S START WITH THE MONEY. In the primary season, fund-raising is mostly just a fancy and not terribly accurate poll—a way to measure support among the wealthy and, with the Internet, the passionate. You can have half as much money as the next guy and still win because, unlike Senate campaigns, presidential contests are fought out in the “free media,” where live-TV skills trump paid ads. Money helps build a field organization that can cushion later missteps, but it’s the symptom, not the cause, of success. I’ve seen candidates win Super Tuesday states where they had no ads on the air and only a half-dozen volunteers on the ground. Remember: momentum generates money, not the other way around.

Similarly, early starts are relevant only if the candidate is simultaneously obscure and in touch with the national mood, like Jimmy Carter in 1976. Four and a half months—the time between now and the first primaries—is plenty of time to introduce oneself to the voters. While it’s true that Iowa and New Hampshire voters like to meet their presidential candidates personally before they vote for them, there’s an easy solution for Clark—skip the cumbersome, labor-intensive Iowa caucuses, where the Democratic Party is not in sync with the military anyway. Al Gore in 1988 and John McCain in 2000 blew off Iowa and paid no price; they lost the nomination for other reasons.

Will the Clark team spin "losses" in Iowa and NH this way? Stay tuned.Let’s admit it: the “money primary” and early field organizing are covered so extensively so that we political reporters have something to do before the real fun begins. Sorry to use another sports metaphor, but this is like handicapping the baseball season based on the size of a team’s payroll and how early the players report to spring training. It sounds obvious, but the only real way to judge both athletes and politicians is by how they perform on the field. Can they keep it between the foul lines? Execute a squeeze play? Work the umpires (in this case, reporters)?

The political equivalent of these attributes boils down to timing, message and temperament. If a candidate can master all three—and not alienate the press—his future is bright. While Clark looks to be in good shape on the first two, the third remains a big question mark. He has to adapt to all the requirements of this different sport. When Michael Jordan tried out for the White Sox, he could run and field but couldn’t hit.

That's why they pay the big bucks at the news weeklies: this is the kind of objective analysis I hope the new campaign team is offering, and it goes to my earlier point that WKC is playing much better to the troops than the pundits.Clark’s timing is exquisite. In any other election year, a former general wouldn’t have a chance in the Democratic Party, which is deeply ambivalent about the military. But active Democrats know that they must restore credibility on this issue to stay competitive as a party. Even if he fades, Clark helps in that process. Republicans are already trying to tar him with the Clinton brush; both are Rhodes scholars from Arkansas (though not close friends), and a chunk of Clinton’s staff is joining Clark. Yet even Karl Rove might have trouble turning a winner of the Silver Star into a weenie. Clark pushed so hard to liberate Kosovo in 1999 that he alienated the other brass. They were wrong and he was right, and millions of lives were saved. The timing is good for a humanitarian hawk. Although he hasn’t yet outlined specifics, Clark’s message is also strong. It will basically be that he is more in touch than Bush on domestic policy and more competent on foreign policy.

This season, competence in the Oval Office is critical, at home and abroad. Re-election campaigns are all rehire/fire decisions. Because the voters went through something big and traumatic with President Bush on 9/11 and most felt he did a good job, he has a reservoir of psychic support to draw on. So the anger Howard Dean represents is not a terrific general-election message. A stronger message for Democrats is that the voters must reluctantly fire this likable president because he’s not performing. Clark is in a good position to make that case.

The issue for Clark is temperament. A friend of his told me last week that he had “never seen him relax.” A moment later the friend added that to win, Clark “must relax.” It may be that Clark has too thin a skin about his thin skin and may resent efforts to make him confront the rookie mistakes that have already begun. Even so, some of the interpersonal issues are being overplayed in the press. in “War in a Time of Peace,” David Halberstam writes that Clark “saw brilliantly what was in front of him ... like a laser scope.” Great quality in a president.

But Halberstam also writes that “his peripheral vision ... was considerably more limited.” This is a potentially deadly flaw: politics is all about sensing the audience around you. Clark could be disciplined enough to teach himself these skills—or they may be unteachable. The wonderful thing about the grueling process of a presidential campaign is that we will soon learn the answer. Either way, it’s a lot more relevant to his political fate than how much money he pulls in at his next fund-raiser.

Tony Soprano Goes to the United Nations

To his admirers, Pres. Eisenhower's penchant for golf relected the image of a Bob Hope, easy going and confident, while Bill Clinton's inability to keep it in his pants reminded the more indulgent of us of Michael Caine's Alfie. Ronald Reagan struck skeptics as a close cousin of Sleepy from the Seven Dwarfs, while Gerald Ford might have been a prototype for "Dumb and Dumber."

George W. Bush, of course, would like to inspire comparisons with all the great Hollywood heroes of the air, from "Twelve O'Clock High" to "Top Gun." But those who witnessed his more than usually snarky appearance before the United Nations yesterday might have noticed striking similarities to one of contemporary pop culture's most complex yet amoral anti-heroes, Tony Soprano.

Remember the episode where Tony takes over the business of a "degenerate" gambler who can't pay his vig? Tony and his crew exact payment by "busting out" the poor schmuck's sporting goods store, purchasing thousands of dollars in merchandise for which they have no intention of paying but will resell at a 100% profit. Davey Scatino, thrown out of his house for good measure, moves into his store and sleeps in a tent.

Another degenerate gambler, Saddam Hussein, infuriated us by refusing to roll over and beg after the first Gulf war, and when members of his Rotary Club exposed our homeland security as, well, insecure, we decided we'd set an example for others who failed to respect us as the guys in the white hats. And how would we reimburse ourselves for the trouble and expense Saddam caused us? In oil, of course, which while it would eventually enable the average Iraqi to purchase an SUV, would in the meantime prevent the cost of fuelling Arnold's Hummer from approaching the cost of the Hummer itself.

When Iraqi oil didn't readily squirt out of the ground into the gas tanks of our Escalades, another tactic from the Tony Soprano play book suggested itself. Let's say Tony's waste management was being threatened by "unfair" competition from one of those big high-tech conglomerates moving in on his "accounts." He might have a sit-down with Johnny Sack from across the river and ask Johnny to send some of his boys over to New Jersey to teach the interlopers a lesson about unfair competition. Given that they share corrupt politicians and many other business interests, Tony would be justifiably upset if Johnny asked him for a piece of the waste management business for helping with this little problem.

Perhaps next season Asian mobsters might threaten Tony and Johnny's thing on both sides of the Hudson, but the bad blood left over from the failed garbage negotiation would taint any unified effort to fend them off. That might just be the end of the Sopranos. Word is the West Wing is shifting to the right. Here's hoping they regret that move going into the 2005 season.

A U.S. soldier in Iraq

A U.S. soldier in Iraq wonders: 'How many more must die?'

Tim Predmore is on active duty with the 101st Airborne Division near Mosul, Iraq. . . . He has been in Iraq since March and in the military for about five years. Another serviceman who feels dissed by his commander-in-chief.

"Shock and Awe" were the words used to describe the awesome display of power the world was to view upon the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. It was to be an up-close, dramatic display of military strength and advanced technology within the arsenal of the United States and the United Kingdom's military.

But as a soldier preparing for the invasion of Iraq, the words "shock and awe" rang deeper within my psyche. These two great superpowers were about to break the very rules they demand of others. Without the consent of the United Nations, and ignoring the pleas of their own citizens, the United States and Britain invaded Iraq.

"Shock and Awe"? Yes, the words correctly described the emotional impact I felt as we prepared to participate in what I believed not to be an act of justice but of hypocrisy.

From the moment the first shot was fired in this so-called war of liberation and freedom, hypocrisy reigned. Following the broadcasting of recorded images of captured and dead U.S. soldiers over Arab television, American and British leaders vowed revenge while verbally assaulting the networks for displaying such vivid images. Yet within hours of the deaths of Saddam's two sons, the American government released horrific photos of the two dead brothers for the entire world to view. Again, a "do as we say and not as we do" scenario.

As soldiers serving in Iraq, we have been told that our purpose here is to help the people of Iraq by providing them the necessary assistance militarily as well as in humanitarian efforts. Then tell me where the humanity was in the recent Stars and Stripes account of two young children brought to a U.S. military camp by their mother, in search of medical care? The two children had been, unbeknownst to them, playing with explosive ordinance they had found and as a result were severely burned. The account tells how the two children, following an hour-long wait, were denied care by two U.S. military doctors. The soldier described the incident as one of many "atrocities" he has witnessed on the part of the U.S. military.

So then, what is our purpose here? Was this invasion due to weapons of mass destruction as we so often heard? If so, where are they? Did we invade to dispose of a leader and his regime on the account of close association with Osama bin Laden? If so, where is the proof? Or is it that our incursion is a result of our own economic advantage? Iraq's oil can be refined at the lowest cost of any in the world. Coincidence?

Is this true? I wonder why that is if so.

This looks like a modern-day crusade not to free an oppressed people or to rid the world of a demonic dictator relentless in his pursuit of conquest and domination but a crusade to control another nation's natural resource. At least for us here, oil seems to be the reason for our presence.

Whoaaa, I thought at first Predmore was a poster-boy for Clark but this bitterness sounds more like Dean. Even I don't think it was only about oil, though you got to wonder how guys who eat, sleep and drink the stuff didn't know how run-down Iraq's oil industry was or how to protect it from sabotage.

There is only one truth, and it is that Americans are dying. There are an estimated 10- to 14-attacks on our servicemen and women daily in Iraq. As the body count continues to grow, it would appear that there is no immediate end in sight.

I once believed that I served for a cause: "to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Now, I no longer believe; I have lost my conviction, my determination. I can no longer justify my service for what I believe to be half-truths and bold lies. My time is done as well as that of many others with whom I serve. We have all faced death here without reason or justification.

How many more must die? How many more tears must be shed before America awakens and demands the return of the men and women whose job it is to protect them rather than their leader's interest?

With that, we might consider to what extent this degree of demoralization renders Predmore even more vulnerable to injury. Sad. Sad. Sad.

Rangel an unlikely ally

Rangel an unlikely ally of Clark

As a native New Yorker, I am thrilled that Charlie Rangel, representative for New York's 15th Congressional District which comprises East and Central Harlem, the Upper West Side, and Washington Heights/Inwood, is among the first in Congress to endorse WKC. He's truly one of the good guys. And he's anything but an unlikely ally of Clark. If anything Colin Powell is an unlikely ally of Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. Congressman Rangel, who bootstrapped himself into a position of prominence in the Democratic Party and the House, understands that the odds of lawyers, doctors, and bankers emerging from Harlem are a bit better than those of Rhodes scholars and world citizens hailing from Arkansas. Their mutual concerns geo-politically are basic to "acting locally": education, health care,voter registrationnn, bullet-proof voting machines, tolerance, and equal economic opportunity. These are all fundamentals of democracy that tend to be neglected or abused when a region is impoverished and beknighted. Genuine public servants, Charlie, Wes, and Bill will never be truly wealthy, but they will have legacies that survive in the communities they helped to improve. A true Democrat, Rep. Rangel is all about transcending differences, a regular Great Society kind of a guy. Thanks to www.citizenonline.net for this excellent profile.

Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) did not study foreign policy at invitation-only seminars underwritten by major foundations. Nor was he ever the favorite protege of a powerful, senior diplomat. For him, there was never to be a junior year abroad.

Clark should know this about Rangel. In 1984, Rangel endorsed Walter Mondale for president over Jesse Jackson, who drew enormous support from African American voters. Many African American politicians, anxious to avoid accusations of disloyalty to a presidential candidate of their own race, rushed to jump on the Jackson bandwagon. Not Charlie Rangel. He stuck with Fritz Mondale. He’s the kind of guy you want to have with you in a foxhole.

Would you like an exit strategy with your jobless recovery?

Would you like an exit strategy with your jobless recovery?

To stay in, we've got to define our exit strategy - General (Ret.) Wesley K. Clark in the London Times, 7/1/03

The deaths of US and British soldiers, the continuing violence and economic sabotage, and the rising popular resentment at the Western presence are just the first cracks in the facade of postwar American-British occupation. Every student of Iraq issued a warning about the aftermath of war: deep fault lines between Sunnis, Shias and Kurds, with additional tensions caused by Islamic extremists, Baathists and Arab nationalists, would make it difficult to hold the state together. The questions are, is this effort "winnable?" If so, how? And at what cost?

Let's be realistic: measured against the objectives, we haven't done so well yet.

Weapons of mass destruction have not yet been found - but the intelligence suggested, at a minimum, that Saddam Hussein had some chemical and biological capabilities. Weapons may have been hidden in Syria, buried underground, or given to terrorists - or perhaps the intelligence simply overestimated the threat. We must continue the search - we have most of the resources we need to be successful in place already - but each week increases the likelihood that some of these weapons may end up in the wrong hands.

Good point: the Anyone But Bush league tend to imply that if the weapons existed Blix would have found them, which is potentially almost as dangerous a position as the demagogic gun Rumsfeld and Cheney pointed to our heads. I think it's safe to assume that Saddam had WMDs he could employ locally, and that just as we can assume he and Bin Laden are still at large, someone knows where they are. WKC speaks realistically, not moralistically, and hence claims the non-partisan high ground.

As for regime change, Saddam and his sons no longer occupy their palaces or control the Government. Yet their survival feeds fears of a Baathist return, sparks continued resistance, and undercuts efforts to establish new institutions.

Has the capture of the sons made any difference. I'm sure I don't know.

Efforts to locate and track the Baathist leaders must continue. But this requires deep penetration into Iraqi society. We have radio and telephone listening devices and are working to recruit additional agents, but there are no guarantees of success. Each unsuccessful week of effort reveals the limits of US intelligence and influence, and each week is likely to see the Baathist resistance grow.

To my mind there's a big difference between WKC saying "intelligence doesn't know everything" so we can't count on them for all of the answers, and Cheney telling Tim Russert, "We don't know," but trust us on this.

(MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it's not surprising that people make that connection.
MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don't know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn't have any evidence of that.)

Meanwhile a deeper, private struggle is ongoing between various factions in the Shia community. Will they secure dominance over their Shiism from the Iranians, and re-centre the sect on Najaf? Will they succumb to pressures from Iran? Will they demand a fundamentalist theocratic state, or some form of "modern" theocracy that combines Islamic law with limited democratic forms? The Shia issue is potentially the most explosive. If they are able to move together, they will dominate Iraq. But in the press here we see only the barest surface ripples from the major movements underneath.

Nuance is all as WKC might say, but will he be able to make arguments this subtle as commander-in-chief? Why isn't Gen. Clark sending the press to these stories?

Shia leaders know the threat of the Baathists. Even now they must be assessing the options. They could help the coalition to defeat the Baathists, and then ask the coalition to leave; remain neutral, and wait for both the Baathists and the coalition to exhaust themselves; or work with the Baathists, on their own terms, seeking control inside the Baathist organisation and building pressure against the Americans and Brits. Right now, some of this is likely occurring.

Regardless of the twists and turns of internal Islamic activities, the outcome seems clear - the US and the Britultimatelyutimately be invited to leave; how soon depends upon our effectiveness in the occupation. The manner of our departure may follow from a quiet series of meetings with Iraqi clerics, it may be in massive street protests that shut down commerce and traffic; or it may be punctuated by violence on a scale far greater than yet seen against Americans and the Iraqis who have co-operated with the coalition.

And in the north are the Kurds. They are armed and largely self-governing. Independence will be the next step, should Western nation-building efforts falter.

Success is not impossible, but it will be difficult, and it grows more so with each passing day.

It is simply not possible to maintain this occupation by force, even if we doubled the forces committed there. The actions against the Baathists - the sweeps, strikes and searches - risk the kind of popular ire that resulted in six British soldiers being killed near al-Amarah.

So what can be done now? A successful outcome would be to solve the mystery of the WMD, suppress the Baathist resurgence and hold Iraq together, leaving it self-governing in some semblance of secular democracy, secured by its own armed forces, free from domination by other regional powers or terrorists. Winning in Iraq requires working with the existing forces in that society, not against them. Representative Iraqi institutions - national, regional and local councils - need to be established to work with the US and UK civilian administrators. These institutions must leave no one out, including former Baathists, who should be given an opportunity to renounce their former loyalties.

The internal squabbling and scheming must be forced out into the open and the press invited in. We must propose responsibilities, procedures for decision-making, and standards for protecting the rights of the various factions in the councils, and retain the authority to admonish, remove or hold accountable leaders who don't follow the rules.

There should be no democratic elections until much later. Incidentally, let's make no mistake about oil revenues, impounded Iraqi funds, or profiteering by US and British companies. We must continue to set aside any idea that this occupation could be Iraqi-financed.

Another example of WKC's unique pov: on one hand he debunks the ever-pollyanna-ish notion that Iraq could, would or should support our war. On the other he appears to be agreeing with the administration against the French that Iraq is a long way from voting for a democratic government, which dictates our being there for years, not months.

The US and UK must also recruit and equip tens of thousands of Iraqis to handle the security and reconstruction responsibilities of the occupation. Yes, they must be trained and vetted - but this must be done quickly. Iraqis must be put in uniform and on to the streets alongside the US and British Forces as soon as possible, and thousands of translators must be brought in. Iraqi faces must be seen to carry out some of the tougher chores like the searches for weapons, responses to complaints, guarding facilities and pursuing criminals. And there should be a prohibition of searches in the absence of translators.

So far Clark is the only politician stressing the need for translators (corrections welcome), which is so commonsensical and yet innovative, it deserves to be discussed in a separate article.

Communications with the Iraqi public is crucial. Western forces must take extraordinary measures to combat rumours, fears and suspicions. This means more transparency in decision-making and complete reporting on the results of the patrols and searches. Why can't we have our own 24-hour news channel in Arabic? Military forces must find new ways to provide this transparency without it hobbling operational methods and aims.

Where is the Voice of America in all this?

Do we have the staying power for what we're facing in Iraq? First, let's be honest with ourselves. We went into this mission with a myopic focus on the Iraqi threat - we underestimated the strength of the Baathists, inadequately anticipated the resistance during the fighting, underresourced the force required to deal with military "success" and failed to plan fully how to create "regime change". The American and British public need to hear it from their leaders; they need to understand why these mistakes were made and see that those responsible are held accountable. And then we've got to persuade others to help us to shoulder these burdens - the mission is simply bigger than the US and UK can handle. We should be asking the UN and other international institutions to take a greater role.

Sounds like a position to me.

While the civil administration in Baghdad would likely agree with most of these ideas, it has not implemented these programmes with the required urgency nor has it specified the end state it seeks.

If we are successful, the cost of this mission will be measured in years, tens of billions of dollars and dozens more soldiers' lives lost. But failure will be more expensive, and a premature pull-out will exacerbate regional conflict and undercut the War on Terror. So, we need to lock in a defined exit strategy, as we've done in Bosnia, to bring the British and American people and the international community on board: we need to create a matrix measuring progress in political development, economic reconstruction and security, and to announce the report card quarterly. But above all, honesty, and remember, when the Iraqis ask us to go, the mission is over.

I thought the mission would be over when Cheney said, "You may be excused." By requiring a "report card," WKC is certainly following normal organizational practice when one has a boss to satisfy. Too bad Bush Inc. seem to think they're accountable only to each other, and not the world.

Positions? We Got 'Em! yin.blog-city.com

yin.blog-city.com Notes on Gen. Wesley Clark's appearance in Iowa

Tung-yin of "The Yin Blog" offered some good news at the end of a tough week. What a difference 24 hours makes, or maybe the general prefers to pontificate over lunch rather than in flight. My choice of words is deliberate: if a president can't pontificate (and hopefully Wes is using his Shakti Gawain affirmation training to imagine himself there) who can? A little bit of Bryan's "cross of gold" rhetoric never goes amiss on the trail to the White House (I know Bryan lost - three times! But for Iowa and the primaries Wesley needs to awaken his Inner Populist).

As I mentioned previously, retired Gen. Wesley Clark came to Iowa today to deliver the annual Levitt Lecture at the University of Iowa. . . . He had lunch at the law school with the faculty, and I was lucky enough to be at the table he came to. I say "lucky" because I had plenty of opportunity to ask Gen. Clark questions and to follow up on some of them in this informal environment.

Here are some quick thoughts on various issues discussed at the lunch table, during the informal Q&A session just afterward, or during his Levitt Lecture:

* On social security, he seems to think that the solution to the anticipated deficit was to raise the cap on the Social Security taxes (i.e., currently, only the first $87,000 or so of income is subject to the payroll tax). He is against raising the retirement age, because that is the same as a cut in benefits. At the same time, he recognizes that the "lockbox" concept is nonsense, because the government has a "unified" budget.

* On gays in the military, he believed at the time that the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy was okay, but he also pointed out that back in the days of the draft, being gay would not get you excused. He now believes that the policy should be reevaluated because it does not seem to be working well. He favors the British policy, which is "Don't ask, don't misbehave." Interestingly, he explained that "Don't ask, don't tell" seemed to work better in the Army than in the Navy or Air Force. The Army, he said, was constantly short on resources and hence did not have time to spend on determining whether a soldier was gay. The Air Force, in contrast, was full of "spooks" who were going around intimidating airmen and airwomen.

Fascinating, but why alienate the Air Force brass? The general's a loquacious sort.

* He sees three major issues in the election: (1) the war on terrorism; (2) the economy; and (3) the future of the American presidency.

* "How did we get here?" He traces the current split between the U.S. and continental Europe not to Iraq, but rather to the end of the Cold War. "What happened is we won . . . and we lost. We lost our mission, our sense of purpose. It had been to contain the expansion of communism, to deter Russian attacks, to help fledgling democracies." Now, he says, we are "rudderless." What should be our direction?

If Bush Inc. didn't have Weapons Of Mass Destruction to revive the Cold War, it would have had to find another us vs. them paradigm to fuel their morality-driven crusade. Probably faith vs. atheism. Doesn't what's left of the Republican center realize that the evangelicals and neo-cons have more in common with radical Islam than the center of either party? Did these guys miss the lectures on the Constitution because their frat parties ran too late the night before?

1) Inclusiveness: "You don't make us safer by erecting walls to keep others out, but by building bridges. . . ."

3) Use of force: We should believe in a strong and effective military, but we should also realize that force is to be used as a last resort. "It's very difficult to change people's minds when you are bombing and killing them."

Who in the administration wants to change their minds? Looks like we just want to bomb and kill 'em.

* On terrorism, he favors focusing on the terrorists and funding, as opposed to countries. However, in probably the most controversial part of his speech, he singled out Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt as the "central fronts" -- Saudi Arabia because of "hatred spewing out of" the country, Pakistan because of its madrassas, and Egypt to a lesser extent.

Now we're speaking Truth to Power. As long as our "allies" in the region find it politically expedient to support groups that demonize us, our bombs, and boots on the ground will never give Americans their money's worth, much less squelch terrorism.

* On whether U.S. soldiers should serve in U.N. missions led by non-Americans, he was skeptical. The U.N. was fine for observer or peacekeeping missions, but for missions with the serious potential for military conflict, the U.N. had no military command capability. He prefers a NATO command, because "we trust NATO commanders." But he emphasized the need for the U.N. imprimatur because around the rest of the world, what the U.N. says is law.

* He did realize that aspects of the U.N. were less than perfect. He refused to defend the fact that Syria is chairing the U.N. Disarmament Commission and that Libya is chairing the U.N. Humans Rights Commission, labeling those as "absurd."

. . . I have to say that given the breadth of questions he was getting, he showed remarkable command of factual matters and political issues. What I was most impressed with was his willingness to accept reality and to state clear opinions.

I've read across the blogosphere that Gen. Clark comes across as cold and impersonal, but here in Iowa he did not seem that way.

So if one agrees that the above represents a satisfactory exposition of WKC's current positions, why aren't they emerging from the past week's encounters with the press? Is the press suppressing the general's views, or has he simply failed thus far to reduce them to slogans? One of Wes' favorite words seems to be nuance. It reminds me of what my dad, a retired corporate executive and employment counselor has always told me, "Getting the job and doing the job are two completely different things." Heck, in this economy, even the best resume isn't as important as acing the interview. Welcome to the club, Gen. Clark. We'll do our best to make sure you aren't underemployed.

The general needs a campaign song

The general needs a campaign theme song!

I haven't figured it out, but for every good suggestion made, I'll drop one of the lamer candidates in the poll. I'm definitely showing my age; I can't think of anything from the 90s.

Boots on the Ground, Family Back Home

Boots on the Ground, Family Back Home - New York Times op-ed page, 9/21/03

Not a day after my Talking Point on the significance of the volunteer army as a constituency, Mark L. Kimmey, a lieutenant colonel in the United States Army Reserve, addresses concerns apparently ignored by the Defense Department, despite the assertions of Don Rumsfeld below. Col. Kimmey is a systems engineer in civilian life presently serving a tour in Iraq. Though his analysis is thoroughly non-political, as behooves an active officer, the facts as he sees them reveal the administration's bewildering failure to address the needs of our citizens who serve under arms. The tone of anger underlying his dignified complaint is palpable. But then given the failure of Bush Inc. to honor and support a commitment to first-responders at home, the bleakness of Col. Kimmey's outlook will come as no surprise.

He writes: The Army's decision to keep its Reserve forces in Iraq on duty for a full year from their arrival may have profound consequences for both the Army and the war in Iraq. While the Army will gain increased flexibility with its "boots on the ground," the long deployments may demoralize reservists. When mobilization and demobilization are included, 12 months on duty in Iraq will mean a 14- to 16-month separation from family and career for reservists.

. . . the message to reservists is unmistakable: the Army no longer takes into account sacrifices made to maintain two careers and lives. . . . For a reservist, every day in uniform is a day away from what might be (or might have been) a promising career. . . . Hardships on Reserve families have increased with longer and more frequent deployments. Reservists don't always have ready access to a military base and its support programs. Left to fend for themselves, Reserve families are becoming more vocal about their unhappiness with the situation. Politicians may not be listening to their complaints, but you can bet we husbands and wives overseas are hearing their pain.

The Army is fond of bragging about the advantages of the all-volunteer force. But reservists are volunteers, too. We sign up for the Reserve when we leave the Army because we want to continue to serve with people we respect. . . . The problem in Iraq is that the Army doesn't seem to know what to do with us. . . . In the case of my brigade, we've had nothing to do for almost a month. . . . The feeling throughout the ranks is that we are being held in place while someone tries to think of something for us to do. We've been assured that new orders will be published "any day now," but we've heard that before.

The advantage of experienced reservists to a unit is immeasurable. But here in Iraq, I am hearing more soldiers talk about calling it quits when they return to the States. Even though some soldiers are only four or five years from qualifying for retirement pay and benefits, they're getting out. The constant deployments are difficult for families and careers, they say, and waiting around for retirement benefits is no longer worth it.

The evidence I see in other units around me is the same: the United States Army is about to see a mass exodus from its Reserve. . . . If the Army continues its policy of year-plus tours for its Reserve forces in Iraq and elsewhere, it will soon find those ranks empty.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has said that we need to be fair to reservists, their families and their employers. If reservists are forced to spend too much time on active duty, he said, "we're going to end up losing them, and we can't afford to lose them."

From my perspective, however, we're already losing them. The real impact of the Army's policy on Reserve deployments won't be felt until long after his watch. But because everything bad that happens is the commander's fault, Mr. Rumsfeld's tenure may be remembered less for its battlefield victories than for the damage it caused to the morale of the Army.

Given a choice between arrogance and incompetence or arrogance and an honorable peace, the self-assurance based on experience of a Wesley Clark should be encourgaged rather than despised. Col. Kimmey, with all his ability, loyalty, and patience, has been reduced to another date rape victim of Bush Inc. If you're old enough you remember the 4F's: "Find 'em, feel 'em, f*k 'em, forget 'em."

Karl Rove should go right after Rumsfeld if he thinks the volunteer army isn't a political minefield. And then there's New York City, my home town, characterized by the White House travel bureau as "a nice place to hold a convention, but I wouldn't want to live there."

Talking point: It's a volunteer army

Talking point: It's a volunteer army!

We've heard a lot about these silly resume comparison polls which favor Clark by a broad margin over the president. That's good. It speaks to electability, but not about leadership. We live in a political world and so leadership for better or worse is defined periodically by the commitment of constituencies to a candidate. Commitment is obviously a lightning-rod value in the American cultural dialogue, to the extent that the administration permits dialogue. And commitment is important to every constituency, depending on how it's framed. The evangelical unwed mother of a teenage daughter may be committing her faith, her powers of communication, and her lifestyle to ensuring her loved one never needs an abortion due to unwed pregnancy. OTOH, the latest hip-hop artist out on parole may be equally committed: to a curious re-distribution of wealth, that takes the rights of others into account no more than our single mom, whether it be by the occasional armed robbery or the illicit sample. Discouraging the daughter from seeking an abortion or preventing the parolee from carrying a weapon may require more than the passage of a law. It might require a re-definition of commitment across the society.

So commitment is a good thing, even if its definition is not necessarily universally agreed upon. In the popular culture, whether we are talking about Eminem or Britney, commitment equates with intensity. Popular entertainment values are intentionally relative, satirical, and situational. We may not hold it against the single mom if she feels that every street-wise pop star is a potential Saddam Hussein (gives me something to talk about at parties with Don Rumsfeld.) We'll leave which of our odd couple is least likely to vote aside for now. So commitment is a pretty twisted sister at this point, and we don't need a government to cynically exploit it.

Getting back to commitment and the volunteer army. The "See Spot run" version is this:

1) We're at war
2) There seems to be momentum for keeping us at war for some time
3) The army is comprised of volunteers, who are professionals in a truly 21st Century sense, in that most will by preference and circumstance career-change out of the army and need to be replaced. The fluid workplace is a fact of the coming economy, yes?
4) We need a lot of warriors now and we will need more in the future. A draft will be on no one's platform in our lifetime.

So: let's take care of the armed forces. America's grown up: you can't make the argument anymore that if you're against the war, you're against the boys and girls , and that's great. No more can anybody accuse a soldier of being a capitalist tool and not appear a fool. Nobody doesn't like Sara Lee. Thankfully, though nobody is all that all over commitment in their own lives (divorce rate? Beniffer?), now we can start to think more about the boys and girls than about "The War." That's revolutionary, but it's what the general is suggesting by basing his candidacy on his incredibly important analysis of the Iraq war as "elective." What Clark won't say but I will say for him is: it's one thing to deal with an imminent threat and lose thousands of citizens committed to the safety of their fellow man. Mistakes will be made. But how dare you commit the armed forces of this great country to an elective, yet open-ended confrontation, without taking the dignity of these human beings into account. The president's agenda ultimately degrades our dignity while increasing our vulnerability and discontent. It is antithetical to a broadly based commitment. Put another way, we all need insurance and we realize, whatever our level of education, that the price of insurance is determined to some extent by the odds of the pay out. But for the president of the United States to ask his armed forces to accept actuarial odds against their death that his administration has arbitrarily set could be criminal. Not to speak of taking our social security trust to Las Vegas for a bachelor party/prayer breakfast. (Hopefully my anger is evolving into commitment.)

There is so much greater in the general's favor than the uniform gap with the president. The initiative Clark must seize is support from the first responders, the reservists who must be mighty uncomfortable with current events, the troops in the field, the guys who are a lot like he was 20 years ago, who know they will stick with their commitment to service, but hate to think that when they get home, their brother-in-law is still going to be living in the guest room. (Give Kerry props for his recent endorsement from the national fireman's union. Too bad nobody gives a damn.)

But that gets us to a another, and very delicate point, about the similarity between various contemporary violent professions. Mercenaries, professional security, intelligence officers, criminals, conspirators, frauds, sociopaths, drug dealers, arms brokers, industrial spies, general officers, and big city detectives all have in common that they have committed to living with the threat of violence because they live with the enemy. We pay a lot of guys to shoot at each other rather than us, either with our taxes or our consumer purchases.

Wesley Clark views the phenomenon of the first-person shooter game and its impact on crime from the perspective of a space station. That's the irony of the nickname his less-than-enamored subordinates allegedly gave him: "The Supreme Being." Napoleon has a resonance here as well, which is why DeLay's olboquy, Clark's a "blow-dried Napoleon" rings ironically true. The base of Napoleon's early support was due to his brilliance as an artillery strategist, but the foundation of his mission was his troops' embodiment of his physical, moral, emotional, and intellectual commitment. All good soldiers must love the study of history and that study is broader and richer than the mere employment of best practices.

No matter how Wesley Clark runs, he is a campaigning civics lesson. He has run a gauntlet already and made some enemies. Yet once more, he has re-enlisted. Faced with a potential adversary who has Air Force One at his command, the general is traveling in borrowed planes. If Wesley Clark fully connects with his inner citizen, the man who knew he was only borrowing the chateau in Belgium, we cannot all help but benefit. One of his colleagues called him "a national treasure." It seems unlikely that encomium was prompted by Gen. Clark's tipping him to an inside stock trade.

If we need the Army more than ever, it follows that Wesley Clark's mission is to support it. Wouldn't it be ironic if fifty years out the General's reformation of what it means to serve our country under arms resulted in an overall decline in the misuse of firearms, without special legislation to dictate it.

Talking Point: The $87B

Talking Point: The $87B

Clark Says He Would Have Voted for War - New York Times, 9/19/03

Buried at the end of Adam Nagourney's account of his plane trip with the general is a point that seems to have been all but overlooked (links to coverage of this point are welcome; I haven't seen anything):

General Clark said his domestic priorities would include health insurance and rolling back parts of Mr. Bush's tax cuts. "I don't see why we can't have health insurance for every single American," he said.

Asked how he would pay for it, General Clark said he was open to some cuts in the budget he is more familiar with - the Pentagon's. "The armed forces are a want machine," he said. "They are structured to develop want."

Halleluiah! Our man doesn't lack courage. One of the neo-con's weakest points, yet among the hardest to assail, is their wrapping themselves in the righteousness of defense spending. Despite the folly of Star Wars and other pork barrels, most voters probably agree that 2/3 of the money should be spent "on the troops" and 1/3 on Iraq's reconstruction, but does anyone believe that the "troop money" will not go largely to technology and "services" determined by the chickenhawks?

One thing the general as a commander had in common with any governor or mayor was his reliance on federal subsidies to pay for his organization's infrastructure and maintenance. Safe to say, that just as homeland defense has a lower budgetary priority than weapons replacement, the armed forces in the field have to fight for what they need and take what they can get.

So Clark has two wins from attacking how this "new" money will be spent: firstly, by comparing his army funding experience to the financial problems of local governments, regardless of their party affiliation, he can claim both empathy and experience with the problems inherent in top-down federal spending. Secondly, he can immediately apply his indisputable expertise derived from command in the field to point out that money spent on defense is not necessarily money spent on the troops, and so cast "his" troops as ordinary citizens who are being screwed just as badly as any other taxpayer, only their lives are on the line.

In every way, Clark needs to make the troops one of his primary constituencies. We will need these people to defend us abroad for the indefinite future, no matter who sits in the White House. They are our sons and daughters, and they cannot be allowed to wake up in the morning knowing the odds are 2 in 150,000 they will be injured that day by criminals, discontents, religious fanatics, or "patriots" without our government doing everything possible to prevent that. Moreover, the volunteer army is a primary avenue to upward mobility among minorities, since the armed forces are truly, if paradoxically, one of our most democratic institutions. Clark needs to wrest the hearts and minds of the troops on the ground from the thrall of the neo-cons. He can do that by insisting that their safety, opportunity for advancement, and benefits for their families take priority over techno-toys from the armament manufacturers. If he goes further by rationalizing the policy toward gays and applying his commitment to affirmative action to the constituency he knows best, the resulting loyalty that may develop among the troops will be reflected in the grateful votes of their families back home.

Gen. Clark, please hold the administration's feet to the fire on this new appropriation. Don't let them pretend that what is good for the Republican party is good for our boys and girls by definition.

"Mary, Help!"

--- In wesleyclark2004@yahoogroups.com, "mysistershouse2003" wrote:
> Does anyone know if he was joking when he said this? I don't
> remember there being a characterization in the article. I should
> think it would make a big difference if he said it in a joking manner.

I'm sure it was meant to lighten things up. And if the remark were made in the context of a touch football game, it would be appropriate and charming. It's just the offhandedness of the joke that makes me wonder if Clark gets it yet (the press). I think if the general were visiting a bombed village in the company of a youngish female aide and were to be asked questions he wasn't ready for, his response would not be "Help!"

So did he say it with a smile on his face that was probably devastatingly charming? I'm sure he did, but his response doesn't reflect that he is taking the *professional* journalists he invited to travel with him seriously. It appears that the general thinks he gets a few practice swings to warm up. However, the press are being paid to create a story and he unfortunately gave them one.

What's too bad about this is that the journalists on Thursday weren't lobbing him softballs like Bill Maher but they weren't in attack mode either: I don't think they expected him to solve the problems of the world during a short plane ride. But I do think they expected him to demonstrate the thoughtfulness and preparation that goes with his primary image, that of a general, not of a "good guy."

When to some minds, Clark was indecisive about his run, I thought it was brilliant that he kept offering "parallel" planning as his rationale. It was in keeping with his professional training, reflected his understanding that such decisions are not black and white, and tactically allowed him to draw the "enemy" (the press) out while reserving his options.

Part of that parallel planning should have been boning up on at least one or two hot issues on which he could appear committed and innovative. Like any good neo-con (and they are good politicians, obviously), he should keep bringing the game back to his court. There's a big difference between Clark saying, "Help Mary, I'm trying to help them spend the $87 billion dollars sensibly and all they want to talk about is medical marijuana," and "Help Mary (I need you to translate for me)."

I'm confident that Clark is going to be a very good campaigner because he does have a very human charisma that will appeal to traditional Democratic constituencies, such as women, and I believe, minorities. But while I expect him to be in command of many facts during the debate on 9/25 and actually say something we want to hear, I am doubtful that he is ready to start winning debates. That he is not controlling the dialogue and speaking from strength is disconcerting.

Ron

Talking Point: IT'S THE EXIT STRATEGY, STUPID!

Talking Point: IT'S THE EXIT STRATEGY, STUPID!

"Clark says he probably would have voted for war." - Boston Globe, 9/19/03

Why is the general trapping himself in a plane for 90 minutes (!) with four journalists (who were they?) on the first full day of the campaign? Isn't there a middle ground between seeming to be aloof and conducting a bull session before anyone (including the candidate himself) knows where he stands on so many of the issues? Though I devoutly hope Gen. Clark will never appear on "K Street," he should heed the observation of Paul Begala regarding Pres. Bush: "One of the things that makes Bush such a disciplined politician is that he never answers hypotheticals." (paraphrase)

One would think a life-long military officer would display that discipline when speaking in public even more thoroughly than the former figure-head CEO of a ball club. I think Wes is going to have to cover his ass a lot better: I can't believe that the general is responding to hypotheticals simply because he wants the press "to like him" and regard him as forthcoming, so I can only assume that he is either naive or falsely over-confident to trust them not to abuse his penchant for intellectual discourse. In fact, it's so obvious that Clark is smart that he needs to take care not run rings around people. But smart as he is, he couldn't possibly have the same information Bush presented as a rationale for war as a member of Congress and hence, as a strategist, shouldn't even be offering an opinion as to what his vote might have been. What he does have a right as a citizen to demand of the administration is accountability and basic honesty, two character traits seemingly scarce in the executive branch.

The NY Times in covering the airborne gab-fest dourly tells us, "He offered the case on both sides of the argument, as he appeared to struggle to stake out positions on issues that have bedeviled four members of Congress who supported the war and are now seeking the Democratic presidential nomination."

Probably more germane to Clark's actual thinking is this quote from the Globe, not included in the Times account: "The simple truth is this: When the president of the United States comes to you and makes the linkages and lays the power of the office on you, and you're in a crisis, the balance of the judgment probably goes to the president of the United States." Here is a natural and valuable aspect of Clark's character: he has huge respect and expectations for the office of President, and demands a non-partisan commitment to accountability from the holder of the office. That is what I am confident he is offering us at a time when some Deanists almost seem to regard the Presidency as a necessary evil. From my point of view, Dean and his followers often seem to be superlative *citizens* but they don't seem to embody the character of leadership I believe will unify this country and bring out its best characteristics.

So how can Clark take the leadership high ground even before he has a position on the Cuban embargo or prescription drugs? IT'S THE EXIT STRATEGY, STUPID! This particular mess in Iraq is made for the likes of Wesley Clark, even more than the war on terror, on which I think he is going to be brilliant once we settle down over his "lack of experience in domestic matters."

Clearly, winning the peace is going to demand that the US get real about its proper place in the world. That's Clark's forte: he's a realist, not an ideologue. By helping the American public to really understand *world* politics, and I believe he will be a great teacher/communicator in this regard, we can move beyond a dialogue that gets stuck debating the value of 5-ton replicas of the Ten Commandments.

Clark points out that not a single election among our allies hinges on what their leaders do to help us in Iraq; in fact, thanks to Bush Inc., allied politicians have an incentive to appear to be resisting America's too little, too late entreaties. Why aren't all the democratic candidates demanding Bush tell the American people what he's doing to make a new coalition worthwhile for our "allies"? Of course, he could and probably would lie, just as he has about the tax cuts, but at least he feels he has to justify the tax cuts; why do the American people seem to feel it's OK for us to fight the war on terror essentially alone?

Endorsements from the international community should be invaluable to Clark, if he can get them. Sure it doesn't directly address job losses or an armed forces stretched to the breaking point, but "we are the world" should be the general's campaign song. If the threat of terrorism were to disappear tomorrow, we would still have issues of international trade, monetary policy, AIDS, the environment, fossil-fuel dependency, religious conflict, and nuclear weaponry that affect us directly at home. The Democrats and particularly Wesley Clark need to seize that ground and make it their own. Whether we agreed with the invasion of Iraq or not, we were promised a clean, quick, inexpensive campaign that would help prevent the next 9/11. Bush wants to win the peace so he can go on to making trouble all over the Mid-East; Wesley Clark can contend that he wants to win the peace so that our grandchildren are proud to be American citizens of a global community.

General, please do your best in the debate over economics next week but before too long, please tell us with all the detail and conviction of which you are capable how and when we can bring the boys and girls home. Never let the bastards forget: IT'S THE EXIT STRATEGY, STUPID!

Letter to leadershipforamerica.org: Is the affirmative action brief available?

Letter to leadershipforamerica.org

Is the affirmative action brief available? If not I would respectfully request it be made so. Please make the general's writings and positions widely available. The press has obviously not read a word he has written. It is understandable that he expect people to take him at his word, but his word should be more accessible.

Gen. Clark is a man of strong conviction on the most compelling issues of life and death since the Cold War held us in suspense for more than a generation. We cannot allow this administration to equate "Terrorism" with the "Communist Threat" with impunity. There are better ways to go.

Be seeing you,
Ron

Salon.com | Wes Clark's bad day

Salon.com | Wes Clark's bad day

From: "Ron Ross"
To: wesleyclark2004 Yahoo board Date: Fri Sep 19, 2003 8:53 pm
Subject: Re: Wes Clark's so-called bad day

--- In wesleyclark2004@yahoogroups.com, "henryyouga" wrote:

To hell with that Salon writer, he is clueless. Clark's speech in Iowa today, was absolutely beautiful and breath-taking. He hit every note perfectly, his vision will be the gold-standard. I have absolutely no doubt why I came to support Clark in the first place. I have absolutely no doubt that he will be a strong contender, down to the wire, for the nomination and the presidency.

Now I know I was right to title my brand-new blog-in-progress, "To Sir With Love." ;) I think the complaint here was the general's surprising casualness about details combined with a failure to anticipate the terrain. On that score, Joan Walsh isn't asking for too much of a man who is meant to epitomize, "Think globally, act locally." Also let us note, that clueless or not, Joan is a she.

I have no doubt Dean is a great campaigner, but vision and charisma is what will carry the day. Clark has that. Hopefully, for those of you who missed it, there will be a replay of Clark's speech in Iowa today. It was perfect and beautiful.

Agreed the man is a plug-n-play icon if he handles himself well. That said, the campaign will do well to avoid photos of the general in full dress uniform. As handsome as he is, the image is fearsome, as it was intended to be. It does not convey the populist feel that is said to succeed in the primaries.

One of the big surprises of the last two days is that Gen. Clark appears to be a much bigger hit with the "troops" than he is with the press (who does that remind you of? Perhaps every president since JFK?) General Clark would appear to be most at ease with a bird's eye view of a vast landscape or in hand-to-hand combat. It does not so far seem he would do well dealing with an ambitious border guard eager to thwart his immigration, or at least to question it closely.

Yes, General Clark does have seem to have a little silver spoon of meritocracy dangling from his key chain (somewhat like a Skull and Bones watch charm?), much like his friend Bill Clinton (the reason they both appeal to Charles Rangel is that the congressman knows that Arkansas provides far fewer Rhodes scholars than Harlem does lawyers; it's an educational backwater. Gee I hope Bill's education legacy is stronger in Arkansas than GW's is in Texas.) Walsh was astute to pick up on that.

What I can ignore is her rantings about Clark being the establishment candidate. As someone said, he doubted the Democratic elite had either the power or the foresight to be as manipulative as both the left and the right are suggesting. Why Hillary and Bill are fucking around with all this is perverse and disappointing and honestly, though I don't think Hil will run and I do think they wish Clark well, I think it's Wes's first exposure to this particular kind of ambiguity and it's distracting him.

No excuse for him not boning up on the Brady bill though. Done right, weapons are a slam dunk for him. He could actually contend that his complete ignorance of legislative politics aside (which is the real Achilles heel, not elective politics where I think he's electable), HIS ENTIRE WORLDVIEW COULD JUSTIFIABLY CENTER ON THE CORRECT USE OF WEAPONS, FORCE, PUNISHMENT, AND THE FREEDOM TO LIVE WITHOUT UNDUE FEAR OF ALL THREE (sorry for the caps).

IOW, if this guy can talk to people about guns, killing, punishment and opportunity in a meaningful way from Saturday Night Specials to Star Wars, and he can, he can, *that* is a breath-taking brand distinction.

Right now his problem isn't that he's too much like Clinton. He's not enough. Does anyone remember Bill stumbling on these issues 11 years ago? I don't, but maybe that's the point, eight years of prosperity covers a lot of sins.

The problem with Anyone But Bush is that we cannot allow the incredibly low standard Bush has set for the most important office in the world to cause us to ignore the shortcomings of even the most capable and appealing candidate. Fidel Castro is a man of destiny, Arafat is not. Our deepest fear, which Walsh honestly if subliminally expresses, is that we will have to settle for less than a man of destiny. I believe that Wesley Clark's mission is to make being a Grown Up look good in the best possible way.

Three days ago I thought as I was nurturing my crush, "How refreshing it is that we might have a president who doesn't have to grow into the job."

A mere 72 hours later I have Grown Up: I now realize that everyone has to Grow Into the Job. Earlier today I wrote that Wes's theme song should be "We Are the World." Tonight I think it should be Dylan's "Gotta Serve Somebody."

Ron