Ex-Military Leaders Speak of Clark Flaws

[Khephra]

WASHINGTON -- Wesley Clark, the retired four-star general who is running for president, got himself in hot water with his Pentagon bosses more than once in his 34-year military career.

Clark matter-of-factly recounts a time when the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was so irked he grumbled that Clark had "one foot on a banana peel and one foot in the grave." As it turned out, less than a year later Clark was yanked out of his job as NATO's Supreme Allied Commander early, his military career abruptly over.

Plenty of generals in the U.S. military have been chewed out, of course. And plenty of Clark's former colleagues in the military speak highly of him. But it is notable that a number of fellow retired officers now speak frankly about what they see as his shortcomings as a leader.

more..........

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-clark-military,0,4638566.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

[Skwmom]

1. Having been in the military, I consider this article a non-issue.

In the military you are supposed to blindly follow the orders of your superiors without question (no matter how stupid those orders might be). Obviously, Clark did not do that. He stuck by his convinctions instead of sucking up to his superiors. By doing so he put his career on the line. Sounds like a true leader to me.

If the man was only being praised by everyone in the military, then I would really, really worry about him.

[TreasonousBastard]

2. I tend to agree.

Competition at that level is ferocious, and it can become personal. I believe I got a whiff of sour grapes somewhere.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

3. This bit may explain the Pristina Airport fiasco...

Retired Gen. Dennis Reimer, a former Army chief of staff, describes Clark as an intelligent, "hardworking, ambitious individual who really applies himself hard."

But, Reimer said, "Some of us were concerned about the fact that he was focused too much upward and not down on the soldiers. I've always believed you ought to be looking down toward your soldiers and not up at how to please your boss. ... I just didn't see enough of that in Wes."

Clark, for his part, acknowledges he had conflicts with former Defense Secretary William Cohen and some top Pentagon officials. He attributes that in his memoir to pushing relentlessly against the military's "innate conservatism" to accomplish his assigned missions, particularly in Bosnia and during the 1999 Kosovo campaign.

Maybe this explains the Pristina Airport fiasco. Clark was asked to prevent the Russians from taking the airport, and in an attempt to "please his boss" was overlooking the soldiers involved and the "innate conservatism" any military needs. You don't always just go charging in, sometimes there are other considerations that need to be taken acoount of.

Perhaps Clark felt that pleasing the boss was more important than avoiding combat with the Russians, and he never considered the ramifications of his orders beyond looking good by "getting the job done".

[mikehiggins]

4. Its not necessary to search for justification

It's not necessary to search too hard for justification for Clark's order to the recalcitrant Brit to seize the airport. It was beleived that the Soviets intended to use the airport to reinforce their military presence in Kosovo, adding to the tension on the ground.

Seizing the runways was a version of the old military doctrine of grabbing the high ground whenever possible. If the Brits had been in position when the Soviets showed up there would be very little chance of hostilities erupting.

Even Colin Powell agreed Clark was a brilliant soldier. It is amazing how few specific complaints there are against him other than he pissed off a lot of senior officers.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

7. The point is that there was no possible way to do it...

without adverse consequences. To beat the Russians to the airport would have involved breaching the peace deal with the Serbs, thus providing evidence that NATO was the aggressor. Once the Russians were on the airport, there was a major chance of direct combat with the Russians themselves, and thus political consequnces were unpredictable, but likely to be quite bad.

On top of this, the orders were totally unneccessary, because there were other less dangerous options, and they succeeded without bloodshed.

The fact remains that even Clark's superiors told him to back down, and thus it is not Clark's word against Jackson's, it is Clark's word against everyone else. If the idea had been to win a battle, then Clark would have been correct, but the idea was to AVOID a battle (hence the word peacekeeping) and thus his plans were far too aggressive.

[Toucano]

5. From the same article

"Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who has known Clark for decades and counts him a friend, said one source of friction comes from the fact that Clark the intellect was not a natural fit in the Army culture. But he says Clark nonetheless proved himself a kind and capable leader.

"Look, for 34 years when there was a tough problem the local leadership asked Wes Clark to take on the problem," McCaffrey said. "This guy has been incredibly successful at doing the country's business."

Two other retired lieutenant generals who worked with Clark, Dan Christman and Don Kerrick, said friction involving Clark was to be expected as he tried to balance the interests of NATO allies and the United States.

"We knew that he was a man of his word and that he would deliver what we expected," said Kerrick, who was deputy national security adviser to President Clinton when Clark was at NATO."

Sounds like some people liked him and some people didn't. "Flaws" it would seem are also in the eye of the beholder.

[Zynx]

6. Even though I support Clark as my first choice

though Dean is a close second, I have really grown thin in my support of him after learning he met with and was chummy with Ratko Mladic in 1994.

[wyldwolf]

9. This concern MAY show a lack of understanding of military culture...

...if this is the infamous "hat exchange." I'm not sure... is this what your are referring to?

In many cultures during negotiations, military leaders exchange hats. Old tradition.

I had a professor in college (world history). WWII vet. POW in Germany. He exchanged hats with the camp commadant.

I also seem to recall a story of Grant and Lee exchanging hats while negotiating during the civil war.

However, I've tried to Google this practice but I guess I can't find the right keywords.

Anyone else heard of this?

[wyldwolf]

8. Here is a broader perspective

We've all heard the story by now. A few weeks back, Gen. Hugh Shelton, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was at a forum in California where he was asked, "What do you think of Gen. Wesley Clark, and would you support him as a presidential candidate?"

"I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote." Shelton replied.

There are two problems with that statment. The first is unless Shelton reveals what those "integrity and character issues" are, the charges are meaningless and they show a lack of integrity unto themselves. Afterall, how can Wesley Clark possibly rebutt them if he doesn't know what the issues are? This is like someone telling you on your wedding day, "I wouldn't marry him/her if I were you... I'm not going to say why... just trust me..." Huh? How does one respond to that?

The second problem is the assertion that Clark came out of Europe early based on the mysterious and vague charges of "integrity and character" issues. In all actuality, Clark was relieved of duty based on personal vendettas carried by General Hugh Shelton and Admiral Leighton (Snuffy) Smith. It was Shelton who called Clark to inform him that his nato assignment would end early. (According to Waging Modern War, Shelton would not even show Clark the courtesy of extending the phone call a few minutes to work out a face-saving exit.) President Clinton privately told Clark, "I had nothing to do with it." http://www.farcaster.com/mhonarchive/hauserreport/msg00467.html

So what drove General Shelton to the decision to recall a very successful General from the field after executing a very successful war?

He directly crossed Admiral Leighton Smith, the four-star commander of Mediterranean nato forces. Although nato demanded a full Serb withdrawal from the besieged city of Sarajevo, Smith urged that a brief bombing pause in early September be extended indefinitely, since, as he explained to Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, he thought the United States had no business intervening. But Clark, then still a three-star, insisted in a heated telephone call that the bombing should continue as planned. As Holbrooke writes in To End A War, "I could tell from the noises emanating from Clark's cell phone that he was being scolded by a very angry, very senior American naval commander." Smith--who quickly alerted his superiors to Clark's insolence--had the inclinations of nato policymakers on his side; after all, heads of state had neglected Bosnia as long as was politically tolerable. But Clark was right, and he won: The bombing resumed and caused the Bosnian Serbs to withdraw from Sarajevo within two weeks of Clark's clash with Smith. That November, the warring parties met at Dayton to negotiate a peace accord. Clark was soon afterward awarded his fourth star--despite ferocious resistance from the Army, which would have preferred his retirement. http://www.farcaster.com/mhonarchive/hauserreport/msg00467.html

During the above-mention events, President Clinton seethed, privately calling Smith insubordinate, and eventually forcing the admiral to resume action. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/books/2001/0109.thompson.html

So, we see, Clark defied Admiral Smith, won Clinton's backing, and resumed the campaign. The intervention ended less than two weeks later.

So here's the setup. Clark defied Admiral Smith. Smith alerted his superiors to Clark's "insolence" (but apparantly not Bill Clinton, who agreed with Clark and disagreed with Smith.) Those superiors were most likely Richard Cohen and General Shelton.

Shelton, Smith, and Cohen were angry. Not only had they been defied, but they were proven wrong and were not backed by their Commander in Chief.

They fought Clark being awared his Fourth star - wanting him retired instead. They had been out manuervered by Wesley Clark and Clark won the Kosovo intervention. Embarassing to be sure.

I don't know how thick Admiral Leighton W. Smith and General Shelton were during the Kosovo conflict, before it, or after it, but they have both been guest speakers at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce.

http://www.uky.edu/RGS/Patterson/faculty.htm

I would suspect their association goes back a bit further.

As for Clark and his "character issues," he "risked his career to confront the uniformed reluctance to use force in defense of human rights."

Clark was disliked (even hated?) by the upper Pentagon brass because...

1. Such liberal/progressive views like humanitarian missions and nation building for the military made the Pentagon uneasy...

Despite his credentials as a warrior - 34 years in the Army, including a Silver Star, two Bronze Stars and a Purple Heart earned in Vietnam - {Clark} argues that the U.S. military must learn how to perform such nontraditional functions as peacekeeping and even nation-building, because that's what it will be doing in the 21st century, like it or not. And, since it's no small task to turn gung-ho soldiers into order-keeping policers, it's all the more urgent that the entire military start rethinking its doctrine immediately.

Paradigm-shifting views such as these did not make Clark popular with his superiors at the Pentagon, including former Secretary of Defense William Cohen.

http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&pubID=528

2. Wesley Clark welcomes homosexuals in the military

I'm not sure that I'd be in favor of policy. I supported that policy. That was a policy that was given. I don't think it works. It works better in some circumstances than it does in others. But essentially we've got a lot of gay people in the armed forces, always have had, always will have. And I think that, you know, we should welcome people that want to serve. - MSNBC

Former NATO supreme commander Wesley Clark says it is time for the ban on gays in the military to be lifted. - gayPASG


3. Clark was/is too intelligent for the military "culture."

...General Barry McCaffrey told the Washington Post: "This is no insult to army culture ... but he was way too bright, way too articulate, way too good looking and perceived to be way too wired to fit in with our culture."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1044318,00.html

Here is another article gives both positive and somewhat negative viewpoints of Clark's military career. The most telling quotes, though, are Any problem Clark had with higher-ups in the Pentagon was due to "professional jealousy" by officials who had trouble with a highly intelligent man who made his case with solid evidence and debated vigorously...

and

At the root of this conflict, Taylor said, was jealousy of a "superstar" by Clark's superiors at the Pentagon. "Shelton and Cohen didn't like Wes being direct with them, arguing his case," Taylor said. "They wanted someone they could tell what to do."

-----------------------
After prosecuting NATO's first war by uniting its 19 countries and defeating the Yugoslav Army with no alliance casualties, the four-star general had ruffled enough feathers at the Pentagon that his career abruptly ended.

"Wes could not possibly be a better leader," Taylor said. "I really respect Wes in a very special way for his brilliance. But he's also a man of real character and high personal values."

Any problem Clark had with higher-ups in the Pentagon was due to "professional jealousy" by officials who had trouble with a highly intelligent man who made his case with solid evidence and debated vigorously, Taylor said.

"The guy, when he starts doing something, is exhaustively focused on achieving the mission," said retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who has known Clark since the two taught at West Point decades ago. He preceded Clark as commander of U.S. Southern Command.

The tension with Washington stemmed partly from the failure of bureaucrats to give Clark resources he needed as the commander on the scene, Grange said.

During and after the conflict there was friction between Clark and his superiors, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Hugh Shelton and Defense Secretary William Cohen, apparently over Clark's high-profile persona and his willingness to challenge them.

At the root of this conflict, Taylor said, was jealousy of a "superstar" by Clark's superiors at the Pentagon. "Shelton and Cohen didn't like Wes being direct with them, arguing his case," Taylor said. "They wanted someone they could tell what to do."

more...

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/Nation/AB925B9C76D6B82686256DBC00375519?OpenDocument&Headline=Clark\'s+rise+in+military+impressed+and+rankled+observers


I would say these sound like integrity and character issues I admire.

[Andromeda]

11. This article really explains...

What happened between Clark, Shelton and the Pentagon in greater detail than I've heard before. Clark is really an impressive and extraordinary man. There's a lot of politics played in the military and getting on the wrong side of the higher-ups can ruin budding careers. General Clark seemed to come out of it for the better though and he stuck to his principles.

Clark sounds like he has a lot of character and quite willing to buck the system if he feels it's the right thing to do.

[Malikshah]

10. It goes beyond NATO

Everyone wants to focus on Kosovo-- many of the reports given (WP report after he announced and elsewhere) don't focus on Kosovo alone.

If y'all want to focus on Kosovo, parse out the statements, or parse Shelton's statements--go ahead.

"They're jealous"
"He's too intellectual for the military"
"He bucked orders"

Read some books on management and leadership--then study Clark's career. Don't know what you'll come up with--but it's a lot more involved than many realize.

Being intimately related with a career military officer (i.e. Dad) who specializes in management/leadership issues, Clark falls a tad short in his stock. I was surprised at this, myself--in the end it could come down to personal opinion.

In other words-- this is all a load of whatever. Just give it up and let the voters decide.

[robbedvoter]

12. The bashers are bush's buddies - Cisneros from way back in Texas

and the rest obviously repukes. So, your point for starting this thread is?
(I thought DU-ers mistrusted Clark because he was Pentagon - now that the Pentagon bashes him, we suddenly trust the Pentagon?)

[OKNancy]

13. Whatever

http://www.veteransforclark2004.us/page4.html