Turncoats in unexpected places

Posted on Jacob's Politics and Talk Show Ratings.

Over the last four days I have heard what I always thought was the truth behind the political unsaid stand of certain individuals. I could not prove it till yesterday. Now it is time to share the facts with you.

General Wesley Clark.

When General Wesley Clark stood as a Democratic candidate to get the nomination for the 2004 presidential election, I was eager to see what were his views. There was one over-riding factor which was his stand. The American Army is composed of the greatest men that America has to offer.

I queried him, by email, several times on that.

He never provided me an answer. He was unable to say how this Army had lost almost every battle it had entered into! He was so blinded by his loyalty to his army, he was unable to see beyond the tip of nose. This Army has been and is led by a bunch of sycophants. The US army has been third rate as it has been and is run by third rate politically ambitious Generals.

This is the same Army that had run with its tail between its legs from Vietnam, it had run from Lebanon, it had run from Somalia and now it was causing an immense problem in Afghanistan and Iraq. It has been hammered out of existence almost everywhere it has shown its toothless open mouth.

It is easy for General Clark to spin all this problem on to the political leaders. However, if there are Generals in a well run Army, who know what they are supposed to do, then such situations would never arise.

As General Clark says in the Washington Post Op-Ed on 16th September "The Next War":

Any future U.S. wars will undoubtedly be shaped by the experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, however painful that might be. Every military refights the last war, but good militaries learn lessons from the past. We'd better get them right, and soon. Here, the lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan couldn't be more clear: Don't ever, ever go to war unless you can describe and create a more desirable end state. And doing so takes a whole lot more than just the use of force.

[...]

In Iraq, President Bush approved war-fighting plans that hadn't incorporated any of the vital 1990s lessons from Haiti, Bosnia or Kosovo; worse, then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld fought doing so. Nation-building, however ideologically repulsive some may find it, is a capability that a superpower sometimes needs.

At the same time, the United States' top generals must understand that their duty is to win, not just to get along. They must have the insight and character to demand the resources necessary to succeed -- and have the guts to either obtain what they need or to resign. If they get their way and still don't emerge victorious, they must be replaced. That is the lot they accepted when they pinned on those four shiny silver stars.

Above all else, we Americans must understand that the goal of war is to achieve a specific purpose for the nation. In this respect, the military is simply a tool of statecraft, one that must work in tandem with diplomacy, economic suasion, intelligence and other instruments of U.S. power. How tragic it is to see old men who are unwilling to talk to potential adversaries but seem so ready to dispatch young people to fight and die.

So, steady as we go. We need to tweak our force structure, hone our leadership and learn everything we can about how to do everything better. But the big lesson is simply this: War is the last, last, last resort. It always brings tragedy and rarely brings glory. Take it from a general who won: The best war is the one that doesn't have to be fought, and the best military is the one capable and versatile enough to deter the next war in the first place.

We all know of the situation in 1962 when the then Defence Minister of India, Mr. V. K. Krishna Menon, had earlier put his war machinery to work building Expresso Coffee Machines in the Indian Ordinance Factories.

When the Chinese invaded, the Indian Army was routed.

The Generals who were serving their political masters had gone along with the policy which was to get another star on their shoulders rather than look at the best interests of the country!

So, when the US illegally invaded Iraq, the Generals who were worth their salt were left out of the equation. Those who strung along with the political policy, third rate Army Officers who had only got their stars because of the kowtowing with the politicians, were left to handle a war and its aftermath - something they were least capable of doing.

I was listening to the programme "Sam Seder on Sunday", a liberal Talk Show which runs on Air America Radio. His guest last Sunday was General Clark. As a forward to the interview, Sam was upbeat that General Clark would out the policy about the intentions to invade Iraq as being foolish, unwise, not good military science, etc. He was very expectant what General Clark would say about the politicised behaviour of General Petraeus.

General Clark, in quite nonmilitary behaviour, turned up late for the interview (with no apology) and within a few short minutes it became evident that the interview was not leading in the right direction as was obliging to the wishes of the US and Iraqi people.

First of all he indicated that the Saudis were arming the Sunni population in parts of Iraq. This he did not condemn. Then he went on to say that the major problem in Iraq was the Iranian interference.

His explanation was that the Iranians were providing health care to the Iraqis, providing electricity and clean water, and even educating Iraqis in the Universities in Iran.

To General Clark - this was the problem!

Something that the American Army could not do.

Here was a General pushing for war against a country which was helping to stablise the region in which THEY LIVE!

And to General Clark THIS WAS THE PROBLEM!

He was prepared to keep the US Army in the region indefinitely so as to ensure the resources of the region .- OIL!

This to me showed that this General, who had just a few days earlier come out in support of Hilary Clinton as the Democrat candidate for the next Presidential election, was laying the ground for the Defence Policy of this candidate in which he would either be the Vice Presidential candidate or be included as the Secretary of State or Defence.

It is important to remember that in 2004 the Clintons endorsed General Clark as the candidate for President, which nomination he lost to John Kerry. So this time, General Clark was putting his fortunes where he would be assured of his place in the Government.

To give Sam Seder his due, as he is not a particularly good Talk Show Host, for various reasons I have highlighted earlier on the my Talk Show Blog, he sensed something strange was going on.

But he just could not believe his ears. He wanted to go through the transcripts to analyse the words the General had used before he came to a conclusion as to where this was leading.

In keeping with this strategy, Hilary appeared on five Sunday Morning TV programmes. It was obvious that the campaign was going into full gear to throw the other Democratic candidates off balance as she stood for her beliefs and her war promotion strategy in keeping with the views of General Clark.

On Monday, Bill Clinton started to use the "fall out strategy". He used his goodwill standing with African leaders to get them to endorse Hilary as the next Presidential candidate by getting them to use their "social English" well wishing as international endorsement of Hilary!

And late on Monday, pResident Bush gave the mightiest blow of all, saying that he wanted Hilary to be the next Democratic party candidate so that the Republicans would win against her.

His endorsement of Hilary was given with the full consent of the Republican caucus as all of them know that no Republican can win this 2008 Presidential election with the Almighty Mess there is in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hence, they want an acceptable face in the White House who will cover their backside, and the only one who would be prepared to do that would be the Hilary / General Clark combination!

Bill Clinton was never a Democrat!

Any of you who listen to the top Liberal Talk Show Host in the US, Mike Malloy, will know that he has repeated this time and time again. And the agenda to carry on the Clinton / Bush hierarchy for another 8 years is tempting beyond all commitment to the Democratic Party!