I dunno. I suspect something's up at blogrolling.com. If it doesn't clear itself soon I may just give up on blogrolling and go back to doing it by hand.
Bah. A whitewash job for Clark. It's obvious the writer is biased:
'The bypassing of the United Nations that marked the onset of Kosovo, he writes, "did not seem entirely dissimilar from the prewar maneuverings regarding Iraq," when Bush bypassed the U.N.'
...
'when Clinton ... backed away from the Security Council ... he did not subsequently piece together a paltry, handpicked caricature of a coalition, as Bush did for the war in Iraq.' (emphasis added) Fair and balanced, my left nut!
Actually Kaplan does betray Clark's weakness (besides the fact that he has had no political experience): he' 100% staff; a political officer. "First in his class at West Point, a Rhodes Scholar, an officer who felt at ease as a White House fellow and as a high-level Pentagon planning analyst."
I recently compared Clark to McClellan. That's not entirely true. He's closer to Halleck.
Check what other generals said about Grant and MacArthur. Check what MacArthur and other generals said about Eisenhower.
With regard to Kosovo, it may be that Clark was that rare general whose conscience genuinely wouldn't let him go along with the SecDef—a notorious underperformer in that post—and the JCS, who under the "Powell Doctrine," were often accused of being risk averse. Maybe he was wrong and they were right. But it seems to me a lot of people are alive today because of the Kosovo campaign. The fact is Clark supported his president, per the Constitution.
One doesn't get one, two, three and four stars—separate promotion each time—without having an awful lot of generals in one's corner. Clark isn't Haig.
And why in the world would Shelton's opinion, or that of Schwartzkopf, tip the scales? Who is Shelton, other than a contemporary of Clark's? Exactly which glorious accomplishments was he responsible for during his tenure as Chairman, JCS? Other than presiding over what many have characterized as the Clinton decimation of the military, that is? Some active duty and retired officers thought it might have been nice if he or one of the other chiefs had resigned in protest, if they truly disagreed with Clinton policies, as the rumor mill out of the Pentagon had it. You know, you could turn the whole story around and paint Cohen and the chiefs as bad guys for less than whole-hearted support of the commander-in-chief. But I haven't heard that from Clark.
I'm not necessarily a Clark supporter, but I'm willing to listen to what he has to say.
Actually, shep, I'm going by what 95% of the servicmen have to say about Clark (Tim excluded, natch! heh). There is a very strong theme of his being a "political" general.
Much of his experience (Rhodes, White House liason, analyst) reinforces this.
One of the other things that made me think of this were the comments servicemen make about Clark expecting loyalty, but not returning it.
This all brings to mind Halleck. I don't know that I'd call him indecisive; very cautious, perhaps. :) But still in all a political general who is jealous of competitors; he had little use for Grant when they were both in the same department in the west.
Halleck did, however, graduate high in his class, and gain the nickname of "brains" (sound familiar?). Once he -in effect- became chief of staff for Lincoln, and his own position secure, not only did he feel less threatened by battlefield generals such as Grant and Sherman, but he turned into darn good staff head.
Come to think of it, I'd be tempted to say that Halleck was a better general than "little Mac" overall. McClellan was best suited for logistics and training, not line command.
So I don't think I'm insulting Clark too much. :) But, really, my main intended point was that Clark is more politically oriented than militarily.
Either way, using military experience as a gauge for deciding political potential is ludicrous.
Show me a reliable study that contradicts that, and I'll be glad to look at it.
I'll admit what I've seen isn't a rigorous study, but even a casual review of the public record shows those in the service holding a strong negative opinion towards Clark. For example, go check out blogs run by current, or former, servicemen. Most of them don't have much use for Clark.
This point of view also jibes with the historical record: generals like Clark tend to prefer political manuevering to the military type. This doesn't necessarily mean they're bad leaders, but the grunts tend to take a dim view of the politically ambitious generals.
I haven't made a point of bookmarking and collecting data from weblogs, news stories, and personal encounters, but I'll stand by my remarks.
Does it bother you that much when someone says something less than positive about a Democratic Party candidate? Or do you feel that all Democratic Paty candidates are above all criticsm? Seriously.
Seriously, Casey, I feel that those who make up bogus statistics to support nasty personal accusations (against anyone) don’t deserve to be taken, well, seriously. You offered the stat, you need to provide the data.
Whats up with yor blogroll?
I dunno. I suspect something's up at blogrolling.com. If it doesn't clear itself soon I may just give up on blogrolling and go back to doing it by hand.
Bah. A whitewash job for Clark. It's obvious the writer is biased:
'The bypassing of the United Nations that marked the onset of Kosovo, he writes, "did not seem entirely dissimilar from the prewar maneuverings regarding Iraq," when Bush bypassed the U.N.'
...
'when Clinton ... backed away from the Security Council ... he did not subsequently piece together a paltry, handpicked caricature of a coalition, as Bush did for the war in Iraq.' (emphasis added) Fair and balanced, my left nut!
Actually Kaplan does betray Clark's weakness (besides the fact that he has had no political experience): he' 100% staff; a political officer. "First in his class at West Point, a Rhodes Scholar, an officer who felt at ease as a White House fellow and as a high-level Pentagon planning analyst."
I recently compared Clark to McClellan. That's not entirely true. He's closer to Halleck.
Casey, Halleck was an indecisive and ineffectual field commander. I know you don’t like him but that’s clearly not true of Clark.
Check what other generals said about Grant and MacArthur. Check what MacArthur and other generals said about Eisenhower.
With regard to Kosovo, it may be that Clark was that rare general whose conscience genuinely wouldn't let him go along with the SecDef—a notorious underperformer in that post—and the JCS, who under the "Powell Doctrine," were often accused of being risk averse. Maybe he was wrong and they were right. But it seems to me a lot of people are alive today because of the Kosovo campaign. The fact is Clark supported his president, per the Constitution.
One doesn't get one, two, three and four stars—separate promotion each time—without having an awful lot of generals in one's corner. Clark isn't Haig.
And why in the world would Shelton's opinion, or that of Schwartzkopf, tip the scales? Who is Shelton, other than a contemporary of Clark's? Exactly which glorious accomplishments was he responsible for during his tenure as Chairman, JCS? Other than presiding over what many have characterized as the Clinton decimation of the military, that is? Some active duty and retired officers thought it might have been nice if he or one of the other chiefs had resigned in protest, if they truly disagreed with Clinton policies, as the rumor mill out of the Pentagon had it. You know, you could turn the whole story around and paint Cohen and the chiefs as bad guys for less than whole-hearted support of the commander-in-chief. But I haven't heard that from Clark.
I'm not necessarily a Clark supporter, but I'm willing to listen to what he has to say.
Actually, shep, I'm going by what 95% of the servicmen have to say about Clark (Tim excluded, natch! heh). There is a very strong theme of his being a "political" general.
Much of his experience (Rhodes, White House liason, analyst) reinforces this.
One of the other things that made me think of this were the comments servicemen make about Clark expecting loyalty, but not returning it.
This all brings to mind Halleck. I don't know that I'd call him indecisive; very cautious, perhaps. :) But still in all a political general who is jealous of competitors; he had little use for Grant when they were both in the same department in the west.
Halleck did, however, graduate high in his class, and gain the nickname of "brains" (sound familiar?). Once he -in effect- became chief of staff for Lincoln, and his own position secure, not only did he feel less threatened by battlefield generals such as Grant and Sherman, but he turned into darn good staff head.
Come to think of it, I'd be tempted to say that Halleck was a better general than "little Mac" overall. McClellan was best suited for logistics and training, not line command.
So I don't think I'm insulting Clark too much. :) But, really, my main intended point was that Clark is more politically oriented than militarily.
Either way, using military experience as a gauge for deciding political potential is ludicrous.
"Actually, shep, I'm going by what 95% of the servicmen have to say about Clark (Tim excluded, natch! heh)."
Wow, Casey, you really get around. As long as your conclusions are based on well-researched, truthful facts.
Show me a reliable study that contradicts that, and I'll be glad to look at it.
I'll admit what I've seen isn't a rigorous study, but even a casual review of the public record shows those in the service holding a strong negative opinion towards Clark. For example, go check out blogs run by current, or former, servicemen. Most of them don't have much use for Clark.
This point of view also jibes with the historical record: generals like Clark tend to prefer political manuevering to the military type. This doesn't necessarily mean they're bad leaders, but the grunts tend to take a dim view of the politically ambitious generals.
I haven't made a point of bookmarking and collecting data from weblogs, news stories, and personal encounters, but I'll stand by my remarks.
Does it bother you that much when someone says something less than positive about a Democratic Party candidate? Or do you feel that all Democratic Paty candidates are above all criticsm? Seriously.
Seriously, Casey, I feel that those who make up bogus statistics to support nasty personal accusations (against anyone) don’t deserve to be taken, well, seriously. You offered the stat, you need to provide the data.