Conflicting about Clark

The New Yorker usually known as a trumpet of the liberal media (see their look into Richard Perle), had quite a critical piece on Clark today.

Posted under the "Fact" section, reporter Richard Boyer goes into great depth about why the military establishment hates Clark (or large portions of it), especially why Cohen and Shelton hate him and "fired" his ass.

Now I will admit that during the war in Kosovo, I too was not a pro-Clark man and was concerned about the course of events but I did think the US should have gone in to Kosovo (I'm a firm believer of the Clinton Doctrine-- that the US has a moral obligation to intervene in a Humanitarian Crisis, as a opposed to the Bush Doctrine-- preventive warfare [which in of itself is an oxymoron, going to war to prevent a war?]). Here's why, the mission took so long and was done with one hand tied behind out back.

But after I read Clark's first book, I saw why he did it that why and why I now agree with him and despise the old brass in the E ring of the Pentagon. I believe in the "Clark Doctrine": using coercive diplomacy ("we'd rather not bomb you into the stone age, but if you don't stop doing X, we will") and force as a last resort, WORK with allies, not a floating "coalition of the willing." Because with allies the US is even stronger and more protected against terrorist attacks, financial and military burdens and so on. It makes strategic sense and it is the nice thing to do. You never know when you might need your friends.

Clark may have overestimated the power of the first round of strikes (which were less than a US-only group would have been) in convincing "Slobo" to get out of Kosovo, but his heart was in the right place, and eventually, we did win the war without a single combat death. The Bush Administration's response to Clark's policy-- "No one will tell us where we can and cannot bomb" was, in retrospect, a omen of things to come. A tendency to act unilateralist and me-first without considering the wider implications of actions on alliances and later need for their assistance.

After all,, countries aren't lining around the block to kiss Bush's ring and give us money or troops or anything in Iraq. Hell, the Red Cross isn't even going to stick around, and the UN is scared shitless too.

The positives of working with allies far outweighs the annoyingness of dealing with those "cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys" and the rest of "Old Europe."