Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Interesting Article By Wes Clark On Democrats And The Military

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-27-08 03:10 PM
Original message
Interesting Article By Wes Clark On Democrats And The Military
This is a few days old, but I found it interesting. Thought you might too.


http://securingamerica.com/node/3154

"Taking Command

Actually, Democrats and the military can get along. Here's how.

By Wesley K. Clark
Washington Post | Sunday, December 21, 2008
The last time the United States elected a Democrat as its president to govern with a majority-Democratic Congress, an immediate fracas arose over gays in the military, reinforcing a partisan story line that Democrats can't be trusted with the nation's security. Sixteen years later, some will certainly be watching how deftly President-elect Barack Obama salutes, or how House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid say the Pledge of Allegiance.

These are symbols, of course, but the national security challenges the nation faces now are anything but symbolic: two wars, an ongoing terrorist menace, a growing list of unmet military needs and a long roster of other threats arising from new quarters. So it's natural to ask: What do the Democrats need to understand about the military? And what does the military need to understand about the Democrats? As someone who has labored in both camps, I offer some thoughts. . . . .



So it's easy to assume that the military and the Democrats don't and won't get along. It's also wrong. As the 2000 election approached, a member of the Joint Chiefs confided to me: "You know, people wouldn't believe it, but probably no one else will ever treat us as well as the Clinton administration has." From a shaky beginning, including the confidence-battering 1993 "Black Hawk Down" shootout in Somalia, the top civilians on Clinton's team and the president himself took pains to build respect and trust with the military's top brass -- above all by engaging in forthright dialogue.

Building on that, Obama is off to a promising start with the Pentagon, steering clear of a reprise of the fight over "don't ask, don't tell" and picking pragmatic, non-ideological leaders whom top military officers will find highly reassuring -- especially since so many may have discovered from personal experience that a particular partisan label is no guarantee of good leadership. Retaining Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, designating Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (with her six years of experience on the Senate Armed Services Committee) as secretary of state and appointing James L. Jones (a retired four-star Marine general) as national security adviser should go a long way toward assuring members of the armed forces that their concerns will be given a fair hearing at the very highest levels. . . . "


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-27-08 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
1. Translation: As long as Obama kisses the Pentagon's ass they'll like him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-27-08 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Define "Kissing The Pantagon's Ass"
Please:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Creideiki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-08 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Well, let's see...
"Kissing the Pentagon's ass," could translate as, "recruit felons, gang members, white supremacists, and people who couldn't handle high school rather than people who are gay."

You know, just for starters.

I take Clark's attitude on this as counterpoint to the adage that even a broken clock is right twice a day. Even someone who is otherwise sentient can have moments where they retreat into the brainstem every once in a while.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-27-08 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
2. Did the Military forget they work for the civilians?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-27-08 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Oh, I Bet That's It Exactly!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-27-08 11:47 PM
Response to Original message
5. Obama repeatedly stated during the campaign that he would REBUILD and EXPAND our military.
So, of course, did every other candidate except Kucinich and Paul.

Rebuilding I can understand after the seven years of two wars. Expanding is lunacy. In a world where we are viewed as the source of oppression of billions of people, why would we not begin to judiciously pare down our military? Our overseas bases are largely there to respond to threats against corporate interests.

Counterterrorism is certainly a worthy job for our military, but do we need hundreds of billions more dollars of funding when we already have the world's largest security structure--foreign and domestic?

If Clinton was so good to the military, why didn't they back him with endorsements from retired generals and admirals like they did for Bush?

I fear we are in the grip of a military-industrial-governmental monster that devours everything in its path. Feeding it our sons and daughters and our treasury will only delay the day that it eats everything we offer it, then demands more.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC