Thank you for the post. However, my issue is not whether one agrees or disagrees with Clark. I am not a Clark fan. My issue is the malicious slandering of someone's reputation without facts.
However, Halderstam's book is absolutely positive about Clark and negative about the incompetence of the general staff. They have always fought the last war.
As an aside, in the '91 Iraq war, a colonel came out with a plan, massive parallel bombing, which meant for the first time in history, the army was secondary to the air force. The colonel's boss, whom may have been Shelton, was on leave when the plan was submitted to Schwartzkopf, and when he returned, he tried to kill the plan. It was too late. Clark also used massive parellel bombing in the Balkans very successfully, with little, if any loss of American lives.
People certainly differ on priorities and that is helpful. What is not helpful is character assasination without facts.
Clark did meet with Milosovic to attempt a political solution before resorting to a military solution. What's wrong with that? He certainly did not appease Milosovic--quite the opposite. >>Left and liberals always appease<< When I read that leftists and liberal always try to appease, I think of Harry Truman in Korea and Japan, of Kennedy in Cuba and Berlin, and Clinton in the Balkans--against the wishes of Germany and france. Generalizations like that are useless. I left out FDR, a great liberal who could hardly be called an appeaser.
fred |
