WT Forums

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/ ... index.html
<img src="http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/16/elec04.prez.clark/vert.clark.jpg" border=0>

Clark told reporters Tuesday to expect "a marked change" in the Democratic field but would not confirm his decision to run.

However, he said the country is "hungry for dialogue and looking for leadership."

He is expected to launch his candidacy in Little Rock with an announcement at noon (1 p.m. ET) Wednesday, and has assembled a team of campaign operatives that include veterans of the campaigns of former President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore.

An outspoken critic of the U.S.-led war in Iraq, Clark said the country "is in significant difficulty, both at home and abroad."

"I think it needs strong leadership and visionary leadership to take it forward," Clark said after meeting with Democratic officials in his hometown of Little Rock. "So that's what's drawn me to this prospective point right here."

Though other Democratic candidates have had a months-long head start in terms of organization and fund-raising, Clark dismissed concerns that it was too late for him to enter the presidential race.

The 58-year-old Clark is a West Point graduate, Rhodes Scholar and former CNN military analyst who led U.S. and allied forces in the 1999 air war in Kosovo.

He retired from the Army in 2000 after a 34-year career that included combat in Vietnam and leading the military negotiations in the peace talks that ended the war in Bosnia in 1995.

"I've got a broad background of leadership experience -- executive leadership, diplomatic leadership and political leadership -- and I think that's what the American people are looking for at this time," he said.

Clark became NATO's supreme commander in 1997, but reportedly clashed with Pentagon officials during the Kosovo campaign and was relieved of command after the war. Clinton, a fellow Arkansan, said last week that Clark would "serve our country well."

Clark convened a meeting of his political advisers and friends Tuesday in Little Rock to discuss his decision. Among those in attendance were George Bruno, a former Democratic Party chairman in the early primary state of New Hampshire, and former Clinton White House spokesman Mark Fabiani.

In previous interviews, he has said he considered President Bush's tax cuts inefficient and unwise and would consider suspending or rescinding them if elected president.

He said years in the Army had persuaded him to support affirmative action "in principle," although he suggested its benefits could be cut at a certain income level. And he said he would reconsider the Clinton administration's "don't-ask, don't-tell" policy on gays in the armed services, saying he considered it ineffective.





Edited by - MrMudd on Sep 16 2003 1:23 PM

Has anyone read Clarks book, “Waging Modern War?” It sounds like he doesn’t hold Air Power in very high regard.

Examples:

Pg. 39:
Lt. General Marv Corault (USA): “Look, there aren’t enough targets and they don’t represent any kind of a center of gravity. With five days of good weather we could take them all out, and then we would find that the Serbs would just keep on doing whatever they were doing. Air strikes just won’t be decisive.”

General Clark: “I filed the information away. It certainly was consistent with my Vietnam experience and some of what we had learned about airpower during the Gulf War.”

Pg. 424, 425:
Clark: “The air campaign began with enough forces to punish the Serbs, but it lacked the mass and capabilities needed to halt the ethnic cleansing…”

“Planning and preparations for ground intervention were well underway by the end of the campaign, and I am convinced that this, in particular, pushed Milosevic to concede.”


This tone seamed to continue through most of the book. I wonder what Clarks DOD budget would look like?


"One of the serious problems in planning the fight against American doctrine, is that the Americans do not read their manuals, nor do they feel any obligation to follow their doctrine." -- Admiral Sergei Gorshkov

Wasn't this the guy whose predictions of the main battle in OIF were pretty much...wrong? I guess being the top in your West Point class isn't everything.



Edited by - tritonal on Sep 16 2003 4:34 PM

He's likely not going to be the Pres Candid but he has a good chance to be VP. Dean would love to have a General as VP to show he has a defense/national security guy on his ticket.

"Wasn't this the guy whose predictions of the main battle in OIF were pretty much...wrong? I guess being the top in your West Point class isn't everything."

Wrong? He was right on the money. His only criticism was that force levels(ESPECIALLY heavy engineering units) were inadequate for proper FORPRO(Force Protection), and he was DEAD ON accurate. The levels were far below neccesary, and still are.

Do you watch the news? How many soldiers have died since the war was 'over'? More than DURING the war. This is largely because of inadequate troop levels and materiel for FORPRO.

Tritonal, did you know tankers are being sent on foot patrols because their aren't enough grunts in country? Did you know our tankers are going on said patrols with captured AK-47's because they don't even have rifles?

Clark was absolutely right...and so was McCaffery.

That being said, i'd never vote for him anyway, from everything i've heard, the man is a tyrant of legendary proportions, and is also anti-gun.

"If we are not victorious, let no man return alive."

Gen George S. Patton

Edited by - m21 sniper on Sep 17 2003 01:26 AM

[quote]


Do you watch the news? How many soldiers have died since the war was 'over'? More than DURING the war. This is largely because of inadequate troop levels and materiel for FORPRO.

Tritonal, did you know tankers are being sent on foot patrols because their aren't enough grunts in country? -------

Lack of parts is a biggie. Bradleys are being run up to 1,200 miles per month Vs 800 miles annually before. Tracks are being ate up in the sand along with turbines and rotor blades. Even spare tires for HumVees are lacking. This is pretty damn basic supplies and we can't even support it.

Guard/Reserve types are going to start walking after their tours up.

Baghdad Airport isn't secure enough for commercial flights yet. Big hint we don't have enough boots on the ground in Iraq yet.

Jack

Troop Levels

The U.S. Army has a total of 31 Brigade Combat Teams and two Armored Cav Regiments. The Rotation Plan for Iraq issued by the Pentagon this summer uses 21 Brigade Combat Teams from the active U.S. Army. Not all 21 will be in Iraq at once, but over the next one year that amount of units will either be in Iraq, or be home after having been deployed to Iraq.

The Rotation Plan for Afghanistan uses 5 Brigade Combat Teams.

That's 26 U.S. Army Brigade Combat Teams and two ACR's for the Middle East folks. Out of an Army of 31 Brigade Combat Teams and 2 ACR's, that's 85% of the combat force needed for Southwest Asia.

That leaves only 5 Brigade Combat Teams. 2 of those are stationed in Korea.

And of course we need a force in the U.S. ready to respond to Pacific contingencies (read: North Korea) and global events. That force will have to be largely derived from tired soldiers with worn equipment just returning home from deplpyment, plus the Guard, for the next year because of the massive deployment in the Middle East.

There's also the Army Reserve, which has combat support and civil affairs units. Thousands have already been activated.

Then there is the National Guard. It has 15 Enhanced Readiness Brigades and 8 Divisions. The National Guard already handles the peacekeeping mission in Kosovo, Bosnia, and the Sinai. And the Iraqi rotation plan includes two Enhanced Readiness Brigades.

Basically, there are no troops to spare in the active U.S. Army. The Guard has already been used but if you want more troops activiating much of the Guard is the main option. (The Marines are an option too but they'll bitch about already having enough deployments and missions on their plate)

This ain't the 18 Division active U.S. Army we had in 1990.


Edited by - ViperTTB on Sep 17 2003 12:03 PM

There is no way at al I would ever vote for a solely military trained man or woman for leader of our country. I think history shows us (damn theres that history major thing again) that executive level miltary leaders take to much initiative towards trying to give the miltary more leeway with less civillian oversight. I love my military but I know with all my heart that we need POLITICIANS in the White House to check the military.

By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a pearage or Westminster Abbey........Nelson

_________________
YGBSM !

Hawg:

I don't know. That might be the case with other military guys but Clark seems pretty liberal. I doubt he'd cede control of the military to the Generals. He's not the prototype military man.

Edited by - ViperTTB on Sep 17 2003 12:11 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Do you watch the news? How many soldiers have died since the war was 'over'? <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

That's right, since the war was over.
In the MAIN battle he predicted dire consequences and he was wrong. I also have issues about the troops levels in this occupation. I rarely watched him on Credibility No-more News during OIF.

Can anybody recall Kosovo when he got into a scuffle with the Air Force because they had arguments about which altitude to drop their bombs and the Air Force commanders retorted to the likes of <i>Our boys are Pilots not murderers</i>. There was also a British General who accused him of starting WWIII. I'm trying to find the article. More of this will come out when he starts running; I don't think Carl Rove is nervous about him.





Edited by - tritonal on Sep 17 2003 12:50 PM

look every loss of soldier is regrettable, we would all like to have everything concievable for soldiers, and in a perfect world everything will go according to plan.

In the final analysis OIF will be graded very highly by history. We also need to remember how long it took in Germany to get that government running. We also need to remember it took years for our founding fathers to draft then ratify a consitution.

Sniper hate to say it but sometime you have to dance with the woman your brought, not the woman you wished you had. Lets remember Bush had only some many resources left to commit to battle after Clinton. Going excessively heavy in Iraq would have only robbed troops from other areas like Korea.

I personally see Clark as puppet of Bill Clinton, and think the public will figure that out soon.

OIF was, and still is, a cluster fuck.

There are freakin DATs walking around with stinking AK-47's pretending to be grunts for christ's sakes(how the magnitude of that stupididy eludes Tritonal and Matt Lott is beyond my comprehension), and REMFs wandering the cities in unsecure areas(because we don't have the troops in country to secure anything).

The problems are so invasive and far reaching, it boggles the mind.

History will grade OIF as how NOT to run a war, ESPECIALLY from a logistics and FORPRO standpoint.

LOL, civvies...

"If we are not victorious, let no man return alive."

Gen George S. Patton

Edited by - m21 sniper on Sep 17 2003 2:12 PM

Well Snipe on the engagement side OIF will be graded favorably, merely because of civilian veiwpoint imparement... ie they will never see how bad things "could have been" because they weren't, compound that with the fact that the US Army moved faster, farther and with fewer casualties than has been done before and it looks (key word looks) golden... Civies don't have patience and don't IMO truly comprehend that just because the enemy Army has left the field doesn't automatically mean the war is over.

Overkill??? I'd kill a fly with a howitzer if I had one.

_________________
\"One of you is gonna fall and die, and I'm not cleaning it up\"

I'll agree with that Stinger...this war is far from over.

If we are still there in ten years, US soldiers will still be dying there in 10 years.

BTW, the manuever campaign of Desert Storm was far more impressive, and on a MUCH larger scale.


"If we are not victorious, let no man return alive."

Gen George S. Patton

I know that, you know that, most of the people on this board also know that. But, for instance, my boss who gets his military knowledge solely from the nightly news thinks that OIF was the best thing since sliced bread and we kicked ass with no problems at all, and he doesn't see the same problem I do in regards to an enemy fanatical enough (and dumb enough) to attack M1A2's and M2A2's with dump trucks w/ 20mm mounted weapons. I know its hard but you really have to 'forget' a lot of what you know when considering how the masses will view events that they have extreme ignorance in. Thats not even adding in that a lot of people merely think what they want to think and only 'see' the evidence that supports that view point... I'm as guilty as everyone else.

Overkill??? I'd kill a fly with a howitzer if I had one.

_________________
\"One of you is gonna fall and die, and I'm not cleaning it up\"

Stinger:

<<ie they will never see how bad things "could have been" because they weren't>>

Can you elaborate? I'm not disagreeing, just seeking to learn.

Regarding the perception of the masses and their ignorance, I will add that the Embeds (thought up by Victoria Clark) made things look very good. The reports were essentially photo ops and didn't contain any true substance but it certainly changed the way many Americans looked at the war and military, and it made the news reporters buddy buddy with the soldiers.



Edited by - ViperTTB on Sep 17 2003 3:15 PM

Would be a damn fine candidate. A democrat, but who cares, he's a military man! Oh, imagine if Patton had been president! Haha!

"When you put your hand into a bunch of goo, that a moment before was your best friend's face, you'll know what to do."-George S. Patton, Jr.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>There are freakin DATs walking around with stinking AK-47's pretending to be grunts for christ's sakes(how the magnitude of that stupididy eludes Tritonal and Matt Lott is beyond my comprehension), and REMFs wandering the cities in unsecure areas(because we don't have the troops in country to secure anything). <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I said I'm not a fan of the occupation way that were going at it. I know of the DAT's with the AK-47's.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>BTW, the manuever campaign of Desert Storm was far more impressive, and on a MUCH larger scale. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

You can get the man out of the "Big Army", but you can't get the "Big Army" out of the man.
<img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>
I guess your not a fan of Rumsfeld.


I'd actually like to see more boots on that ground there and in Afghanistan, but only our boots.
Keep the blue helmets away.



Edited by - tritonal on Sep 17 2003 4:31 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Stinger:

<<ie they will never see how bad things "could have been" because they weren't>>

Can you elaborate? I'm not disagreeing, just seeking to learn.

Regarding the perception of the masses and their ignorance, I will add that the Embeds (thought up by Victoria Clark) made things look very good. The reports were essentially photo ops and didn't contain any true substance but it certainly changed the way many Americans looked at the war and military, and it made the news reporters buddy buddy with the soldiers.



Edited by - ViperTTB on Sep 17 2003 3:15 PM
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> First I agree with your thoughts on the Embeds(took me a minute on that though because an embed is an item in my line of work).

As Far as "ie they will never see how bad things "could have been" because they weren't" what I mean is that I believe (opinion) that most people in the US don't consider what might have been. I have had frequent discusions whereby I say "but this could have happened" and the response almost to a man is "yeah but it didn't" and in many cases thats followed by "so it couldn't happen"( or words to that effect). Maybe I'm just too cynical

Overkill??? I'd kill a fly with a howitzer if I had one.

_________________
\"One of you is gonna fall and die, and I'm not cleaning it up\"

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

I guess your not a fan of Rumsfeld.


Edited by - tritonal on Sep 17 2003 4:31 PM
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Rumsfield was a Navy Pilot. LOL

I know things could have gone bad, but are you saying we should never have taken the risk. My problem with all this monday morning quarterbacking is that if you guys had it your way we would never have stormed the beaches at normandy. We would have been waiting for perfection. That by definition is not attainable.

Assess your mistakes, improvise, over come and adapt. I know I am civilian but I have done this before when lives we in the balance it is not desirable, but that is life.

"I said I'm not a fan of the occupation way that were going at it. I know of the DAT's with the AK-47's."

Tritonal...forget the AK-47's, and focus on this-

Tankers on foot, with NO INFANTRY TRAINING, are patrolling a hostile city in lieu of infantrymen. And people are surprised when we're losing a guy a day over there.

Well, fucking DUH! Might as well send cooks or (hehehe) Air force crew dogs on dismounted patrols....they would be just as (in)effective as DATs.

We're sending our young into combat without the training, the tools, or the support neccesary....and people are 'concerned'.

Concerned?

Our government is killing these kids by sending them in there TOTALLY unprepared to do jobs they recieved NO training for.

Yup, model war alright...

"If we are not victorious, let no man return alive."

Gen George S. Patton

You know, any of you that think things went or continue to go just ducky over there REALLY needs to read the AAR report i posted.

Seems to be some 'experts' in here that don't know what the hell they're talkng about.

Tell me someone, why were Bradley's sent into MOUT without thier reactive armor installed? It's in the TO&E for every Bradley A2 unit....yet it was never shipped in country.

Better yet, tell that to the families of the crews of the 4 Bradleys from TF C 3/15 that were penetrated by RPG-7's because the ERA was sitting in a warehouse in Indiana.

Tell me why Tankers had to secure captured weapons, because the United States wouldn't provide them with proper weapons for dismounted patrol. For that matter, tell me why tankers are going on dismounted patrols to begin with.

Tell me why not ONE interpreter was assigned to ANY company of the lead Bde in the advance?

Tell me why when TF C 3/15 got to Baghdad they had to use wrecked cars and bicycle racks as roadblocks instead of the heavy Rebar this is a part of the Bde TO&E?

Read the report, lots of warm and fuzzy questions in there, it's filled with em.

I blame Rumsfeld directly for the total mess he has created of this campaign.

"If we are not victorious, let no man return alive."

Gen George S. Patton

I can't understand that either.
I've also heard of Scouts directing traffic.

Tritonal, this kind of nonsense is so widespread over there that the American public would freak if they knew all the details.

Fortunately for the politicians, the US public is too busy buying SUV's and Cappucino's to notice.

Unfortunately for the soldiers.

"If we are not victorious, let no man return alive."

Gen George S. Patton