Wesley Clark's "High Noon" Moment

The Nation's Editor Katrina vanden Heuvel posts some thoughts about a possible Wesley Clark candidacy, including some NATO history. Here's an excerpt. (Click on the link for the full article.)

While media commentary on Clark's prospective candidacy has been almost entirely favorable--even adulatory--it's worth looking back at a forgotten chapter in his military biography that occurred when Clark was Supreme Allied Commander of NATO and Commander In Chief for the US European Command. Call it Clark's "High Noon" showdown. It's an incident that deserves scrutiny because Clark's claim to be an experienced leader in national security matters is tied, in significant part, to his record in the Balkans.

On June 12, 1999, in the immediate aftermath of NATO's air war against Yugoslavia, a small contingent of Russian troops dashed to occupy the Pristina airfield in Kosovo. Clark was so anxious to stop the Russians that he ordered an airborne assault to confront these units--an order which could have unleashed the most frightening showdown with Moscow since the end of the Cold War. Hyperbole? You can decide. But British General Michael Jackson, the three-star general and commander of K-FOR, the international force organized and commanded by NATO to enforce an agreement in Kosovo, told Clark: "Sir, I'm not starting world war three for you," when refusing to accept his order to prevent Russian forces from taking over the airport. (Jackson was rightly worried that any precipitous NATO action could risk a confrontation with a nuclear-armed Russia and upset the NATO-led peacekeeping plan just getting underway with the withdrawal of Serbian forces from Kosovo.)

After being rebuffed by Jackson, Clark, according to various media reports at the time, then ordered Admiral James Ellis, the American in charge of NATO's southern command, to use Apache helicopters to occupy the airfield. Ellis didn't comply--replying that British General Jackson would oppose such a move. Had Clark's orders been followed, the subsequent NATO-negotiated compromise with the Russians--a positive element in the roller-coaster relationship between Moscow and Washington, which eventually incorporated Russian troops into peacekeeping operations--might well have been undermined.

Therefore, it cannot be charaterized as "fair."

.

we're just getting one side of the story that noone including the author can vouch for. All of Katrina's assertions are from second and third party sources.

Also understand. Katrina is a "Progressive" who backed Nader in 2000 until the eleventh hour. She would be more suited to backing Kucinich if she thought he had a prayer of winning. Let's just say, she's from the Kucinich wing of the progressive spectrum and probably would be hard pressed to support any war.

supporters felt it wasn't accurate. But, the story wasn't linked to the "Nation" article, as I recall, but to another source.

This is worrysome to me.......but there were folks who believe this report is biased.

I imagine those on that thread will post here.

But, I thought the article was very fair......and her conclusions at the end are interesting. The incident is worrysome about Clark....but we have to see what happens with him when he declares.

All I ever hear from Clark supporters is about how "electable" he is.

... and the best summary I've read of the incident yet. I would expect no less from Katrina, of course!

As someone who is undecided but leaning heavily Clark, this is one of those questions I'm anxious to have answered. I feel it's been blown out of proportion slightly, but to draw an honest conclusion, I'll need to hear from Clark himself what really transpired from that encounter with Gen. Jackson, and what Clark learned from the experience. I imagine there are more than a few reporters itching to ask him the question.

Seeing as how this issue barely crossed the media radar when it happened, at a time when it was actually crucial to report it, well, I'm willing to wait for a definitive explanation.

- Jennifer

a hatchet job by a writer whose histrionics rival Peggy Noonan. "Clark was so anxious","he ordered an airborne assault to confront these units", "Clark's hotheaded plan", etc. Her pathetic attempt to marginalize Clark as irrational (the mccain smear) is pretty lame.

the events ,as reported by one you seem to irrationally hate, actually are a matter of historical record.

I believe that Clark has noted that the confrontation was first ordered by Washington and then withdrawn, yet it was certainly this incident that led to his early retirement.

heres a choice bit from that article:

"At one point, according to media reports, Defense Secretary Cohen, through Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton, told Clark to "get your fucking face off of TV." "

I do not suggest that this should be ,all in and of itself, reason to end support for Clark's candidacy but one must know everything one can about the candidate one supports, dontcha think? Sort of like how Dean supporters continue to reject his record as a centirst governor.........

I'm very happy that Dean governed in Vermont as a centrist. (Of course, some folks would say "Vermont centrist" is pretty darn lefty. But I digress.) Haven't seen any evidence that Dean supporters "reject" that record. Don't know what you mean.

You may support centrism, Clinton seemed to do some good things as a centrist President after all, but the clamor and support for Deans novel approach to campaigning continues to ignore a very central fact. Deans policies as governor, despite your ascertion that Vermont centrism is somehow really liberalism (and black sometimes is white, I suppose)mirror far too closely some policies and inclinations of our current WH resident, cuts in education, weakening of environmental protections, cuts in spending for seniors, alliance with and favoritism towards corporations, refusal to get behind any cuts in military spending to name a few.........

Civil unions, equal educational funding statewide, putting something like 7% more Vermont land into conservation, childhood healthcare, outreach to birth mothers, and progressive tax policy.

Re: Favoritism toward corporations, yeah, Dean supports IBM because it's the largest private employer in Vermont, with thousands of high-paying high technology jobs, producing energy-conserving microelectronics that cut down on pollution in the products they go into, and they don't produce crappy (energy-sucking) products in some third world country with lax environmental laws. Oh, and the company provides benefits to domestic partners. What's not to like? (Full disclosure: I work for that company.)

Re: Cuts in military spending, huh? First of all, a huge chunk of the military budget goes to payroll. Salaries and benefits for soldiers and sailors. You want to cut any of that? I want more of the budget to go to our military men and women. And then there's that terrorism problem. While it's true our priorities are misplaced within the military budget, the overall size of the budget is quite small historically (as a percentage of GDP). (Check my math on that, please.)

Sorry, I disagree with you. No candidate is perfect, but I'm delighted with Dean's accomplishments and bona fides.

the events ,as reported by one you seem to irrationally hate, actually are a matter of historical record.

It was pretty obvious that i was commenting on katrinas style of writing rather than her cut-and-paste recollection of the pristina incident. Also, it would be better for you to not assume anything about anyones emotional state when debating because its fallatious to the argument itself. Pointing out my belief in her to be a second-rate pop-pundant whose crutch is for the melodramatic isnt hatred.


I do not suggest that this should be ,all in and of itself, reason to end support for Clark's candidacy but one must know everything one can about the candidate one supports, dontcha think? Sort of like how Dean supporters continue to reject his record as a centirst governor.........

I didnt advocate censoring her or this article, so you should stop inferring your beliefs into deconstructing others arguments. You should also change your writing style because you come across as arrogant ("dontcha think?") and condescending, especially when you didnt understand my post.

N/T

eom

Click here for the BBC re-reporting of a story in Newsweek.

I've also seen reference that Chapter 15 of Clark's own memoirs deals with the incident. (Anybody have a copy?) And any details on Clark's departure from service? The few press accounts I've found are best described as murky.

Side note: We might as well get this stuff all out in the open now. I'm sure Karl Rove would run a TV ad featuring a mushroom cloud and ominous voice-over if he could get away with it. First I ever heard of this story was The Nation article.

No candidate in this world will be perfect. But I personally don't see Clark lying and cheating his way to the presidency. I don't see him letting himself be used to the detriment of the planet.

All I ask of a man is to be true, and to be gracious when he is wrong. If Clark can be decent and forthright and correct his course when he veers off, what more can we ask of him?

Regardless of nuclear power, Russia is much has been power as france.
Both of them are trying to jeopardise US in the vain hope of enhancing their glory.
It was nice to call their bluff.

Regardless of nuclear power, Russia is much has been power as france.
Both of them are trying to jeopardise US in the vain hope of enhancing their glory.
It was nice to call their bluff.

If the U.S. is on the wrong course it certainly will enhance both Russia and France to stand up and be counted among the opposition. No nation in the world today has a perfect record, and only the U.S. has such a short memory that it actually claims to have that record. I'd like to see this country take its place as one nation equal with all the other nations of the world.

the Republican Clinton appointed Defense Sec., fired Clark. Clinton was reportedly furious with Cohen; you'll notice that Clinton has had nothing but positive things to say about Clark. Last week he called Clark one of the "two stars" of the Party, besides his wife. Clark seems to have overshadowed Cohen since their days after Clinton and before Clark's Presidential rumors.

Clark's views on Iraq seem much sought after in the European press incuding the BBC and the Guardian. He has been knighted By the U.K. and the Netherlands. Clark has a reputation for having been right on the foreign policy issues of the '90s; as he has been on the foreign policy issues of this decade.

The Pristina airfield incident seems to be hyperbole by the British General. Blocking the airfield to keep the Russians from landing needn't have resulted in a confrontation, according to Clark. The British chain of command gives the General in the field the authority to carry out missions, unlike American operations where details are ordered.

Clark had approval for the action from Javier Solana, the head of NATO. Many familiar with the situation have found Clark's explanation correct. Clark was on the phone at that time with Solana, Secretary of State Madeline Albright, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, U.K. Chief of Defense Charles Guthrie, U.S. Ambassador to NATO Vershbow, several Generals and others as well as Cohen. Clark's support from those of equal and superior rank to Cohen should put the question to rest for most. Nobody on Clark's side, however, said anything juicy about starting World War 3.