President Wesley Clark?
 

:cd:

Well, whaddya think?

- His military record?
- His administrative ability?
- His Balkans service?
- His wartime commander-in-chief prospects?
- His "pro-choice" stance?
- His guns stance?
- His credibility?
- Better than Bush II?
- Better than any other current candidate?
- Better for vets concerns?
- VP for "President" Dean?
- Is he a Democrat, or what?
- "Draft General Clark" effort?
- Right man for the right moment?
- Compromise candidate?
- Arkansas liabilities?
- Never in a million years?
- No chance of winning?

:r:

Allogant Plick
 

As reported on other boards, I knew Clark at the National Training Center (NTC) during Desert Shield, and found him to be arrogant, egotistical, and chose to surround himself with fawning sycophants. Several years later, I had an opportunity to discuss his character with a more senior officer, one who had vett Clark for a White House Fellow slot, and found him to be exactly as described, only with slightly higher rank. This major shortcoming of his decsions-making ability, i.e., by hiring not the brightest and best, but employing those unwilling, unable or incapable of telling the facts, hard as they may be at times to hear. This one trait alone to me is a fatal flaw for anybody seeking a postion of authority, in either the civilian, military or any part of the world.

Thanks Scout...good to have your point of view on the question, as always.

Interesting...

I wish he would jump in. The effect on the nine dwarves would be interesting to watch, to say the least...

Larry

scout,question asked better than bush? four(4) stars, name me one general that isn't egotistical he out ranked you. maybe thats why you didn't and don't like him because he's a little smarter than you.Let's face it scout if had been a four star general you too would have been an egotistical also hell you didn't have the stars and you're that way now.
razz

razz
 

Nice try at starting the "class warfare" bit, but it won't work here. There are a lot of people that are smarter than I am, but that doens't make me dislike them; there were a lot of people in the military that outranked me, but that didn't make me dislike them either. There was an arrogant 1LT that I replaced, an act that probably saved his life, as his men were planning a way to send him home early via a body bag.

I knew GEN Creighton Abrams (4 stars) LTG Julian J. Ewell 3 stars) LTG Harry Critz (3 stars), and a few more general officers, and none of them was an arrogant asshole, all of them had the ability to listen attentatively, and all of them made informed command decisions. Their staffs were supportive and innovative, and most importantly, had the individual and collective courage to speak the truth.

Once again, you have failed egregiously to make your point.

SS
 

As to your description of the Gen., reminds me of another that I was in the area with, to a "T". Had under his command "others like him, Willoughby and Almond". who, in my estimation, "couldn't think" unless they thought it was what he wanted to hear. And this went on from WW 11 until he was canned in '51. As to personal reflections that others want to express, reminds me of the other site when we had KULEBRA, etc., etc., and one female that really needed help!!
SF
NC

Scout and anyone -
Since we've gotten onto the topic of Generals/superior officers, what would be the opinion experienced people have of:
- General Haig
- Colonel Hackworth
Just wonderin'...not that it has dang thing to do with General Clark.

BLUE
 

You're right, it doesn't. End of mission. By mentioning other general officers, I was simply defending myself against the 'leberal' insinuations and extraordinarily lame efforts to link rank with "dislikeability"! :b:

The reason I posted this thread... it's appealing somehow to think in terms of having a General Officer (not necessarily Clark) as president, or at least a senior officer/NCO with genuine battle command experience. This war on Terrorism has been defined as open-ended and global (i.e. WW III declared by the USA?), which means that at least the next president, and probably another one or two or three or more after him/her, are going to be wartime office holders. Since we're at war, that should be part of the job description, shouldn't it?

We've had 5 combat officers thusfar (right?): Washington, who performed pretty well if the myths are accurate; Jackson, who was pretty murderous about Indians but is much beloved in some quarters; Grant, who some say did well under the circumstances and some say did not; Teddy Bear Roosevelt, who did some good things and some arrogant rotten things; and Eisenhower, who is also thought of honorably by most americans.

 My hunch is that the chances are far better, in wartime, that a combat or General officer (or senior NCO for that matter, by the way!) will select cabinet members and white house advisory staff (on matters of national security, diplomacy and defense, etc.) who are:
a) sensitive to veterans affairs
b) practical more than theoretical/intellectual about people being sent to kill and die
c) independently capable of fully comprehending military strategy and tactics,
so make more logical and sensible commanders-in-chief

I've taken cover, so fire at will.

p.s.
Having said all this, I was able to relate to McCain being president, but cannnot bring myself to do the same with Kerry, not totally sure why. On McCain's website to this day he lists "Veterans Affairs" as a major topic.