Wesley Clark endorsements, part 2
I wrote Wednesday that the number and quality of endorsements of former colleagues that presidential candidate and retired four-star general Wesley Clark receives will be revealing of his character and potential as commander in chief. So far, it's not looking too good:

Gen. Clark "is able, though not nearly as able as he thinks, and has tended to put his career ahead of his men to the point of excess," said a defense consultant well acquainted with the Army's senior officers. "He is opportunistic and lacks integrity. He will be an absolute menace if he gets into a position where he can exert influence on the Army because he lacks true vision and is prone to be vindictive."

Gen. Clark "regards each and every one of his subordinates as a potential threat to his career," said an officer who served under him when Gen. Clark commanded a brigade of the 4th Infantry Division in the 1980s. An officer who served under Clark when he commanded the 1st Cavalry Division said he was "the poster child for everything that is wrong with the general officer corps."

Shortly after the confrontation with Gen. Jackson [explained here - DS], Gen. Clark was told his tour as CINCEUR would end two months early. Neither Gen. Shelton nor Defense Secretary William Cohen attended his retirement ceremony, a remarkable snub for a four-star general.

Now, I expect that such sniping would come from certain quarters. Clark, after all, is politically liberal and the buzz about him this week is that he constitutes, on his own merits, a greater threat to President Bush’s reelection than any other candidate. But I still say that a continuing absence of peer-endorsements should make folks wonder about him.

It is not Clark’s reputation as abrasive, impatient or hard-nosed that gives me pause. I worked for more than one officer who displayed all those things (I was such myself at times, too). In fact, the officer whom my peers and I agreed was the biggest [expletive deleted] we’d ever seen was also one whom we agreed was the most competent we’d ever seen. Despite the fact that working for him (he was my direct boss) was an ulcer-giving experience, I and my peers never could find fault with what he was trying to do, just how he did it.

Among the military’s officer corps, flag-rank officers probably more than others, nothing covers a multitude of other sins more than expertise and competence do. The ranks of the left-behinds are swelled with officers of wonderful personalities, just as the ranks of the high and mighty are swelled with jerks. (But when the competent good guys achieve high rank, you bound out of bed every morning with eagerness to work for them. I was fortunate enough to work for a good number of such men who were either already generals or would become generals.)

No, the question with Clark is not personality, although personality is much more important for a politician than a general. After all, Dwight D. Eisenhower was infamous for his explosive temper. The question about Clark is demonstrated competence at levels of very high responsibility. And silence from his former peers speaks volumes about that.

Update: Andrew Sullivan has re-read Clark's article from Sept. 2002 about how to conduct the war against terrorism and observes,

If he had been president, the war in Afghanistan would probably not have taken place, let alone the war against Saddam. His first instinct after the deadliest act of war against the American heartland in history was to help the United Nations set up an International Criminal Tribunal on International Terrorism. I'm not even making that up. Maybe Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia could head up the committee. If I were to imagine a parody of what a Rhodes Scholar would come up with in such a moment, I'd be hard pressed to come up with something more perfect. His insistence throughout the piece is on process, process, process. . . .

Clark's foreign policy strikes me as an abdication of foreign policy. That was dangerous in the 1990s. It would be fatal now.

Which is pretty much what I said Sept. 1.

Update 2: Here is a more positive assessment of Clark's generalship.

Update 3: Mother Jones quotes a WaPo piece:

"'There are an awful lot of people,' [said] another retired four-star, who requested anonymity, 'who believe Wes will tell anybody what they want to hear and tell somebody the exact opposite five minutes later. The people who have worked closely with him are the least complimentary, because he can be very abrasive, very domineering.'"

So said another retired four-star? That's a peer review, folks, and in military-speak, he said that Clark can't be trusted to keep his word.

Update 4: Stryker says that at the Pristina airport, Clark was right and the Brits were wrong. Lots of incisive commentary, some taking Clark's side, some opposing.

by Donald Sensing, 9/19/2003 07:51:06 AM. Permalink |