General Wesley Clark Continues to Demonstrate that “Peter Principle” Sometimes Applies to the Military

March 18, 2005

General Wesley Clark spoke at UNLV and told the audience that

America is in a transition period and needs to have a unified military strategy to protect its citizens in a volatile world.

He also told the crowd, apparently with a straight face, that he was speaking on a nonpartisan basis. Yes, and so am I… Now, listen to his next line.

“We lost our adversary and we lost our purpose in the world,” Clark said of U.S. military planning at the end of the Cold War. “All Republicans and Democrats could agree on was that the armed forces were too large. We never really got an agreed strategy.”

Clark said America’s military strategy had a purpose after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He said U.S. military strategy turned into one of pre-emptive strikes, pointing to military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“The strategy of pre-emption isn’t working,” he said. “We went into Iraq, but it turned out there was no weapons of mass destruction.”

Is it just me, or is this just as incoherent as his presidential campaign was? It’s true we didn’t have a cohesive foreign policy following the Cold War. I used to write on that very subject. It’s also true that we reacquired focus following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. But it’s not true to say that our sole strategy in the War on Terror centered on pre-emptive strikes against foreign lands. It’s also shortsighted to believe that Iraq only involved WMD.

We have a fierce, global adversary in the international terrorists and the War on Terror might span into many decades, just as did the Cold War. Our strategy, as the president has said from the beginning, is multi-faceted, and the possibility of pre-emption is just one aspect of the military component. But if you read on in the article you’ll find where the nonpartisan Clark’s head really is.

Clark said, according to the report, “that before the attacks, the U.S. military and public were unaware of the importance of other countries throughout the world.”

This is just more liberal tripe. The military and public were unaware of the importance of other countries? Only enlightened liberals, I suppose, realize the importance of other nations. Only liberals understand the “importance” of “multilateralism,” which is a euphemism for subordinating our sovereignty and national security interests to the whims of Europeans who can’t stand us and who aren’t doing what is in our best interests, the world’s best interests, or the cause of liberty.

But without rehashing the fallacies in the liberals false charge that President Bush is a “unilateralist,” I do want to point out the obvious flaw in General Clark’s analysis. If the Neanderthals are unaware of the importance of other nations, then why are he and all his liberal buddies so upset with the so-called Neocons? Isn’t it precisely President Bush’s belief in the importance of other nations and the international community that motivates him to fan the flames of democracy in the Middle East? Does that seem like a lack of appreciation of the importance of other nations to you? Wesley Clark was promoted way above his competence level. He continues to be an embarrassment.