stratoman Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 Everytime I see this guy he seems to be 2nd guessing just about anything we are doing in Iraq. It almost seems like he is grand standing for his run at the presidency in 2004 by questioning the administration. I never hear him mention the positive things. Doe's anyone else get the same impression? :?: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 Originally posted by stratoman Doe's anyone else get the same impression? :?: Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 The truth is that when this doesn't turn into a 'quagmire', all of this will be forgotten and will look awfully petty and silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted April 2, 2003 Share Posted April 2, 2003 Clark is an old Army guy and he comes from the Powell school. He's cautious and wants OVERWHELMING force arrayed before being overly committal. Franks is much more bold. The rolling start which inserted our troops so deep into Baghdad so quickly was inspired military thought that saved us countless lives and saved many oil wells in the process. Now that we have resupplied, it appears we are beginning to push forward again, though this will be much slower. Franks doesn't have the size of force typical for an effort this substantial, but, that said, no one has ever had the air power he has available in an effort this substantial. I don't fault Clark for any of his comments. He seems to understand the nature of battle and if you know his history and how he is much more cautious as a General, you understand a lot of his concern. I guarantee you Franks wouldn't be so bold against a legitimate fighting force. As it is, we've moved well into the country and it took 11 days to actually start fighting a real army unit. The relatively mild and harmless harrassment of supply lines is essentially no longer a problem because we've built alternate routes that prevent the enemy from knowing where to lie in wait. I've even heard reports that we are paving a new highway through the desert . If Iraq knew how to fight, we wouldn't have done what we were able to do. And as a textbook thing, I think Clark is probably correct that what we've done is not normal. It just happens to be bold and has worked so beautifully that you'd like to see people focus on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratoman Posted April 2, 2003 Author Share Posted April 2, 2003 it just seems to me that he tries to bash the administration as often as he can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted April 2, 2003 Share Posted April 2, 2003 Clark...has to be careful lest anyone enquire too deeply about his 4*star command tour and the first month or so of the Kosovo war......:cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted April 5, 2003 Share Posted April 5, 2003 Let's take a quick look at what he was saying just 9 days ago, shall we? Clark: Quick victory 'not going to happen'Central Command: Coalition 'certain of the outcome' Wednesday, March 26, 2003 Posted: 10:38 AM EST (1538 GMT) Retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark (CNN) -- The scenario of a quick coalition victory in Iraq is "not going to happen," according to retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark, a CNN analyst and former NATO supreme allied commander. "The simple fact is that the liberation didn't quite occur. They didn't uprise," Clark said Tuesday night. Clark said that more than a quarter of coalition troops are "tied up in a messy fight in Basra." British troops have gathered outside Basra after Iraqi paramilitary forces retreated into the southern Iraqi city. An apparent local uprising began Tuesday, and the troops are prepared to assist civilians to attack the military regime once the scope and scale of the rebellion is determined, according to British military officials. Clark said another significant portion of coalition troops are fighting in Nasiriya, where Marines seized a hospital on the third consecutive day of fighting. "We've got logistics problems," Clark said. A U.S. official told CNN on Wednesday that the U.S. military may have underestimated the strength of the Saddam Fedayeen and other paramilitary groups operating in southern Iraq. U.S. Central Command spokesman Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks said in a briefing Wednesday in Qatar that the resistance from Iraqis "doesn't change our timeline." "We've never said that this would be an easy operation," Brooks said, adding that the coalition remained "certain of the outcome." Clark said that Turkey's "failure to permit the 4th Infantry Division to go through was a significant problem, not an insignificant problem." Turkey has allowed coalition forces to use its airspace but denied access to ground troops that were to move through the country into northern Iraq. U.S. Central Command announced that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's command and control capabilities had been destroyed, along with the national television station, a key telecom vault and a group of buildings housing Baghdad Satellite Communications. But just hours after the command report, local broadcast of the TV station resumed Wednesday. Clark predicted before transmission resumed that it may take several attempts to knock the station off the air completely. "It's probably redundant, so there's probably another set of mobile antennas that they will erect," Clark said. "They'll probably try to get a weakened signal back out, at least once or twice." Gen. Wesley Clark was NATO supreme allied commander from 1997 to May 2000. He was also the commander in chief of the U.S. European Command. In 1999, he commanded Operation Allied Force, NATO's military action in the Kosovo crisis. Clark later wrote about his experiences in "Waging Modern War." He is one of CNN's military analysts, along with retired Brig. Gen. David Grange and retired Maj. Gen. Don Shepperd. Their briefings will appear daily on CNN.com. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted April 5, 2003 Share Posted April 5, 2003 hmmmmm.....2 weeks into it and tanks are rolling thru central Baghdad........none of these guys are on-scene working with current intel........we would all do well to take what they have to say with a measured dose of skepticism......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted April 5, 2003 Share Posted April 5, 2003 oh yea....as in all walks of life...there are folks who truly are great leaders and who know what they are doing....and there are folks who get ahead through a combination of timing, personality, connections, etc....the military is not immune to this........not every retired talking head you see on TV was/is a great thinker who magnificently and brilliantly managed his assignments while inspiring troops to walk off the nearest cliff at his every whim......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted April 5, 2003 Share Posted April 5, 2003 Originally posted by fansince62 ...we would all do well to take what they have to say with a measured dose of skepticism......... Indeed. Or perhaps not pay so much attention to those "not in the know" anymore at all. It seems the standard job for ex-military commanders is now a spot as an "expert" on a news show. I'd be fine just knowing what actually happened, not what these guys THINK will, should or shouldn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted April 5, 2003 Share Posted April 5, 2003 fan...you stole my thunder. Its pretty common knowledge in the military that there are 2 ways to move up the chain. One is to be exceptional. I mean really exceptional. The other is to stay off the skyline, avoid controversy, and never piss anyone of importance off. I'll also say that a lot of the exceptional officers tire of the bureacracy and games in the military and move on. I'm not saying I was an exceptional officer, but I got out after 10 years less than a month after being deep-selected (accelerated promotion) to Captain (an honor I share with Mr. Powell). Why? Because once one reaches the higher ranks, you are increasingly under the politically correct microscope, and had better play ball at all times if you wish to continue moving up the chain. Although I like Powell, I view him (to a certain extent), and Clark (to a greater degree) as type II. Cautious, ambitious, savvy, but not trailblazers, or bold risk-takers. I'm not saying anything is wrong with that mentality/personality. Its probably a good thing that there are those types in the upper ranks to serve as a counter balance against the more numerous aggressive types I prefer. Marines are fond of a saying....'Lead, Follow, or get the f**k out of the way'. Note theres no mention of 'and criticize those who have the courage to lead'. I think Clark is positioning himself carefully for political reasons, plain and simple. He's saying just enough positive things to be able to claim later (after we're overwhelmingly successful) that he was with us all along. Just enough negative to claim he 'knew we would have difficulty' all along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted April 6, 2003 Share Posted April 6, 2003 tar.......spot on bubba!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted April 6, 2003 Share Posted April 6, 2003 Agreed Tarhog, (My dad was one of those on the fast track as well, got caught up in the politics of the game. He did not play politics. Next thing you know..he had a ceiling with a cursory promotion near his retirement. He worked R and D in the Pentagon at the time). Clark get's a little bit of the benefit of the doubt from me where the criticism is concerned simply because of what has already been stated. He's along the lines of Powell in the use of the overwhelming force in sense of say...Desert Storm, (Though one can easily say that with the present results in mind, that's about what's being used now, but you get my point). If I recall Clark was relieved? of his post as SAUCER 3 months early by the Clinton Adminsistration. Officially to make room for his predecessor. More than likely because he insisted upong using ground forces in Kosovo, not exactly what President Clinton, Cohen and others in the administration had in mind. among other things. That whole overwhelming force thing. But yea.... he's definately setting himself up for some possible career advancement. He's certainly smarter than Mccaffrey, the other very vocal critic of this present war and its plan. Hell look at this from March 14, 2003. the Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2003Mar13.html From the article. "Retired Army Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, who attended the session, said he "couldn't agree more" with Pace's comments on the negligible effect of a delay. "In fact, if anything, I'd rather wait 14 more days, than not," said McCaffrey, explaining that the additional time would give soldiers the opportunity they need to unpack and test their equipment and fully prepare for combat. During the briefing, Army Maj. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the Joint Staff's vice director of operations, explained that the Pentagon's full deployment plan -- involving those already in the region, on the way or listed for possible deployment -- totaled 380,000 military personnel. While this number is larger than many previous estimates, said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney, who attended the Pentagon briefing, it refers to a military contingency plan for a worst-case scenario. "That's if something goes wrong," said McInerney, a longtime Iraq hawk, and it refers to plans for "units that have been tagged as reinforcements." Both he and McCaffrey said they came away from the briefing convinced that the 230,000 U.S. troops now in the Gulf region would be more than adequate for an invasion of Iraq." Being that McCaffrey was President Clintons "Drug Czar", can clearly see him attempting a little positioning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted April 6, 2003 Share Posted April 6, 2003 Thanks PCS...actually, in terms of theory, I'm a big fan of the 'Powell Doctrine'...clear cut objectives up front, massive use of force, exit strategy. Although the Rumsfeld plan (if he's actually driving it as reported) calling for fewer less expensive forces, greater reliance on high-tech, air power, guided munitions, and speed may work out well for us in Iraq, I don't think it gives us enough flexibility long-term. In terms of the doctrine, I have no problem with Clark. Its just the pompous questioning of current commanders before the battle is even significantly or decisively engaged that I'd prefer not to hear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted April 6, 2003 Share Posted April 6, 2003 Agreed. Actually, benefit of the doubt may have been the wrong term there..more like..ok... I understand "why" he "may" have a problem with the plan. I'm with you though.... I'd just as soon not have to hear it, especially if there may be an "agenda". as for the whole Rumsfield thing, have no idea who to believe on that one....may wait for the book. Tough to say whether or not this is a changing of Doctrine if you will. It was employed, to an extent in Afghanistan, from what I understand, and is currently working pretty well right now in Iraq. Whether or not it replaces the "Powell" doctrine permanantly is hard to say. This could be a flexible plan in of itself. If/when circumstances provide, ( which right now seems to envelope most of the planet) then stick with the Rummy/Franks doctrine. If necessary though, the "Powll" doctrine can be enacted. Whether or not the forces necessary for that are available is another thing. note: I guess overwhelming can be a bit subjective depending on who one's enemy is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.