Wes Clark defends Obama: Generals 'don't rule Washington'

by: Matt Stoller

Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:50


That's the headline from this Raw Story article on Clark's appearance on MSNBC, and indeed, it's exactly what it sounds like.  Clark actually stood up against the conventional wisdom that the President must always do what Generals on the ground tell him to do.  

Clark then focused more specifically on rebutting Scheunemann's remarks, emphasizing that if Obama becomes president, "as the commander-in-chief, he does not have to take the advice of the commander on the ground."

"As a general, you don't necessarily say, 'You have to listen to me,'" Abrams suggested.

"You don't rule Washington," Clark agreed. "I mean, what Barack Obama's saying is he appreciates General Petraeus's judgment, but he's got concerns that go beyond Iraq. ... Petraeus is in charge of ... one theater of this conflict, and what Barack Obama is saying is, 'I see it, I understand your concern about risks, it's my job to evaluate the trade-off.'"

Wall made one last attempt to bring the discussion back to the surge. "If you are saying to the commander-in-chief, 'Here is a strategy, I believe, that works, we need to try this, we should give it a shot' ... you would hope that that commander-in-chief would take that seriously."

"It sounds like what Tara is saying is, 'Shouldn't he at least say,"Yes,"'" Abrams remarked.

"He's not obligated to say that," Clark affirmed.

Last I checked, we don't live in a military dictatorship, but you can be sure that General Petraeus and angry conservative military elites are going to make sure that Obama gets smeared as 'not listening to the commanders on the ground' if he tries a withdrawal from Iraq.  Well, the fact is, the President controls military policy, he does not have to listen to Generals, it's part of that whole civilian controls the military thing.  If the President followed the orders of our military, we'd have been involved with a nuclear war with the Soviet Union in the 1960s.  It's called civilian control of the military.  And Wes Clark is the only Democratic surrogate making that point, clearly, effectively, and powerfully.

http://www.ObamaClark.com

Matt Stoller :: Wes Clark defends Obama: Generals 'don't rule Washington'

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Wes Clark defends Obama: Generals 'don't rule Washington' | 12 comments
Republican Bottom Line is... (4.00 / 2)
...If you don't like the opinion/judgment of the General on the Ground ... you shop for a different General.

...W. taught us that.

Right--that's what Bush did (0.00 / 0)
And General Casey, whom he removed, is still Army chief of staff.  As such General Casey sees the whole picture, and not jus Iraq.  H is known to favor reducing our deployment in Iraq and to shortening tours of duty.  H is concerned about the readiness of the Army as a whole.  Theatre commanders never see the whole picture, as anyone with half a brain could see, making this whole argument another one of those "I prefer to remain ignorant; don't confuse me with facts or law" kinds of GOP arguments.  Like car tires and gas mileage.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
Keep The Eye On The Puppetmasters, Not The Puppets (4.00 / 4)
No president in recent memory has gotten rid of more top military commanders who didn't tell him what he wanted to hear that GW Bush.  So treating the ones he's decided to keep as anything but political lackeys is simply ridiculous.

But that doesn't mean you have to go after them directly.  Just say something like:

Well, I'm sure we would all have been better off if Bush had listened to General Shinseki before making a fiasco out of Iraq.  And it's good that it's less of a mess now than it was before.  But since Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, we should never have been there in the first place.  So, yes, we will listen to General Paetreus.  But cleaning up Bush's messes is just not more important than dealing with those responsible for 9/11, especially since the Iraqis themselves want us to leave, and think Obama's timeline is a good one.


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
this whole petraeus thing is insane (4.00 / 3)
and exactly backwards. Bush didn't stumble upon, listen to and approve of Petraeus' strategy; Petraeus knowingly concocted the only strategy Bush would approve.
Throughout the war, Bush did not listen to Shinseki, Abizaid, and Casey. Probably several more. He cashiered them because they disagreed with him. It was stupid but fully within his rights as president. Anyone asserting that he or any president MUST listen to and agree with his commanders is an idiot.
This Argument Goes Back To The Korean War (4.00 / 1)
When MacArthur wanted to use nuclear weapons against the Chinese, and Truman said, "no."

Republicans have been siding with the idea of military dictatorship ever since.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Petraeus is being groomed (4.00 / 1)
They want to run him in 2010 if McCain loses and things go south in Iraq when Obama withdraws combat troops.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
"Last I Checked, We Don't Live in a Military Dictatorship" (0.00 / 0)
Is exactly what Obama needs to say, along with all the other thoughtful stuff he usually says.  He needs a department of soundbytes in his room - they need to keep feeding him soundbytes that he can read along with the full issue - because McCain is winning the soundbyte war, without regard for honesty.

Having said all of that - is there any proof at all that Petraeus is part of the smear? Or rather - that he's doing anything other than what a general does - namely take orders from the commander in chief?  I get the impression that an Obama presidency will have a friend in Petraeus - perhaps contrary to popular opinion.

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



What Obama said to him (4.00 / 1)
Obama reportedly told him he understood his position and that if he were in his shoes, he would want maximum flexility and no timetable too.  Petraeus may have been impressed by his intellect and willingness to listen and actually interact, something the notoriously incurious Bush doesn't really do.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
Yep. That was what I recalled (0.00 / 0)
and my impression - especially from the pictures that came back stateside, was that Petraeus was pretty ok with Obama.  Quite unlike some of the phony smiles we often see when Obama's on the trail with surrogates - he and Pet seemed to have genuinely hit it off.

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
A Problematic Comment (4.00 / 1)
Clark is always a joy to watch, especially as he knocks down poorly conceived notions about what diplomacy and the military ought to do.  I feel a bit disappointed in this response.  Obviously, he must remind people that the Constitution rather explicitly spells out the president's authority over the military.  "[The generals] don't rule Washington" could be, however, morphed to easily into "the diplomats don't rule Washington," shadowing in doubt the actions of people like Joseph Wilson.  

My problem is that Clark's comment doesn't capture the pressure that Bush has put on administrators at all levels to politicize their activities.  Ideally, the bureaucrat plays a quasi-neutral role, aware of the complex partisan politics in the nation (both left and right, in the White House and in Congress), but ultimately advocates for the growth and preservation of statecraft.  Bush has been suspicious of the apolitical bureaucracy, pushing not just military and intelligence to produce results that confirm his worldview, but institutions like the EPA as well.  The Plame-Wilson affair could be cast in the light of Bush's desire for the bureaucracy to submit.  

Now, when Bush says he does what the generals tell him is best, he is rebranding political decisions as military strategy.  Clark's comment makes it seem as if the military is robbing civilian government of its prerogative.  We might argue that the Pentagon feels comfortable to enter into political discourses to preserve its power.  Clark must make clear that the generals are giving Bush what he wants.

don't count on it (0.00 / 0)
you can be sure that General Petraeus and angry conservative military elites are going to make sure that Obama gets smeared as 'not listening to the commanders on the ground' if he tries a withdrawal from Iraq.

I woudn't be so sure.  I get the impression that Bush isn't well liked among the top military leaders and they'd prefer someone with a brain.  Say what you will about their preference for using force, but they're not stupid and I doubt they like taking orders from someone who is.  Don't forget that this is the first time in a long time that the rank and file are behind a Democrat, and I wouldn't be surprised if the top brass quietly are as well.
As I recall (0.00 / 0)
Pet said something quite similar.  Something like "there are more than you'd think" re - dems in the military.

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
Wes Clark defends Obama: Generals 'don't rule Washington' | 12 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox